Nikola Lečić wrote: > Anyway, it wasn't clear from the bsd.licenses.mk that we should use > 'multi' in situations of 'any later version'. This means that all > licensing info of eg. GPL2+ ports must be updated when GPL4 appears...
No, we should not use this. Not just because of the potential of having to check and correct every port when GPLv4 appears. In my book, "licenced under GPLv2 or GPLv3" is something fundamentally different from "licenced under GPLv2 or any later version". The licence framework should be able to make this distinction. Another issue is that the licence infrastructure seems to be making statements about the licence of an application, while the committers only tend to look at individual source packages. What would be the licence of an application whose source is published under BSD licence, but that is linked with both GPv3 and OpenSSL-libraries? I tend to agree with Doug and others that it is probably better to scrap the entire idea. Making assertions about licences and what is accepted is a hairy field, best left to experts. Regards, Johan
pgpqnD8hLmBzH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
