Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

On 01/22/2016 08:21 AM, Patrick Georgi wrote: > I'm uneasy > with recommending that when not strictly necessary (I'd consider a > project that's based on "or later" licensing to be such a case). I'm not sure if you mean "something I'm uneasy about", or "an example I'd consider" when you say

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

2016-01-22 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alex G. : > so that GPLv3 projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed They don't even accept code under BSD type licenses. Patrick -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

To add: 2016-01-22 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alex G. : > I think this would be a good move for interoperability, so that GPLv3 > projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed (e.g. > device drivers). I'm strictly talking about listing the preferred > license; it's

[coreboot] [RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

I think this would be a good move for interoperability, so that GPLv3 projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed (e.g. device drivers). I'm strictly talking about listing the preferred license; it's still up to contributors whether they want v2 or v2+. [1] Listed GPLv2+ as

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

2016-01-22 17:25 GMT+01:00 Alex G. : > I'm not sure if you mean "something I'm uneasy about", or "an example > I'd consider" when you say "project that's based on 'or later'". u-boot > is v2+. Does that count? I'd recommend u-boot to standardize on a v2+ template, yes. (not