On Wednesday 03 January 2007 22:54, Steve Long wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is > > a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have > > contents like: > > "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the > > GPL." > > > > The LICENSE would then be: > > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-RENEW" > > > > The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we > > don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). > > If desired it could even be used as LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW" > > That last bit's excessive IMO. It seems to add complexity- does it mean you > can have either of the GPL2 or 3 plus any later from that version? Why not > just cover that with your first example, which I like a lot- it spells out > the later clause, and as you say, is version-independent. > > So GPL-3 GPL-RENEW could be specified, as well as simple GPL-2, or GPL-2 > GPL-RENEW. (Just spelling it out, sorry.) > > I'm thinking about your example and I can see how it covers a user who > *wants* to use GPL-3 (eg for their own code) but I still think that comes > under GPL-2 GPL-RENEW as it's clearly allowed.
My idea for the second way is basically to make the life of tools easier. It would make explicit that someone accepting GPL-3, but not GPL-2 would be able to accept a GPL-2 and later license. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpXrFy0X15tg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
