Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

>> AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
>> LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.

> Coming back to this, because the council has now rejected license
> groups for EAPI 5. I would then create above-mentioned files in the
> licenses dir.

Committed and added to appropriate license groups.

Concerning transition: This issue isn't the most pressing of our
problems, so IMHO transition should be done gradually, whenever an
ebuild is touched for another reason. We can evaluate things again in
a year from now.

If you check the license of a package and find that e.g. GPL-2
(without the plus sign) is correct, then it would be useful to add a
comment "GPL-2 only" to the ebuild. This is to avoid checking packages
twice.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> The "GPL-2+" file workaround doesn't sound to bad.

>> Call be picky, but we could actually use a "GPL-3+" file, too.
>> With that we could distinguish "exactly GPL 3" and "GPL 3 or later"
>> properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not.

> Yes, that was the idea. Otherwise we would have to start over again
> whenever a GPL-4 appears.

> AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
> LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.

Coming back to this, because the council has now rejected license
groups for EAPI 5. I would then create above-mentioned files in the
licenses dir.

Is it sufficient to include a reference to GPL-2 etc. like this:

╓[ GPL-2+ ]
║ GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version.
║ See GPL-2 or GPL-3 for the full text of these licenses.
╙

Or should the full license text of GPL-2 be repeated in the GPL-2+
file?

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote:

> On 05/10/2012 11:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would
>> require such a file?
>> 
>> What do you think?

> The "GPL-2+" file workaround doesn't sound to bad.

> Call be picky, but we could actually use a "GPL-3+" file, too.
> With that we could distinguish "exactly GPL 3" and "GPL 3 or later"
> properly on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not.

Yes, that was the idea. Otherwise we would have to start over again
whenever a GPL-4 appears.

AFAICS, we would need 9 additional license files, namely GPL-{1,2,3}+,
LGPL-{2,2.1,3}+, and FDL-{1.1,1.2,1.3}+.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 05/10/2012 11:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Are there any other licenses besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a 
> file?
> 
> What do you think?

The "GPL-2+" file workaround doesn't sound to bad.

Call be picky, but we could actually use a "GPL-3+" file, too.  With
that we could distinguish "exactly GPL 3" and "GPL 3 or later" properly
on our end, no matter if GPL 4 ever comes or not.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Kent Fredric]

On 10 May 2012 21:39, Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>. Are there any other licenses
> besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file?

I'd welcome groups so we can have a "Perl_5" group. The lions share of
modules published on CPAN are licensed "Under the same license as Perl
5 Itself", which implies "|| ( GPL-2 Artistic-1 )"

And that boilerplate stanza is thus in many of the Perl Modules ebuilds.


-- 
Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

[gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Ulrich Mueller]

Long standing problem: Some of our most used license tags like "GPL-2"
are ambiguous, denoting either GPL-2 only or GPL-2 or later.

One solution would be license groups in ebuilds, which could be added
to EAPI 5 [1]. Disadvantage would be that they cannot be used in
previous EAPIs.

Alternatively, we could create separate license files like GPL-2+, as
suggested in [2], especially since the "plus" versions now have their
own entry in the SPDX license list [3]. Are there any other licenses
besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file?

What do you think?

Ulrich

[1] 
[2] 

[3]