>>>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote: > We are all aware. But the point is to explicitly put "-only" in the > LICENSE metadata so that ebuild authors are less likely to confuse > GPL-2 vs GPL-2+.
I don't see how renaming could possibly help with that. >> Plus, it would result in paradoxical entries like "|| ( GPL-2-only >> GPL-3-only )" for a package that can be distributed under GPL >> versions 2 or 3 but no later version. > That paradoxical entry is pretty clear to me. Not the same thing. "GPL-2-only+" might be clear as well, which doesn't imply that it isn't paradoxical. > It's not a one-time audit. Michał has a history of fixing things in > ways that does not allow the issue to return. I imagine that's what > he's doing here, and it would not surprise me at all if something > could be wired into CI to help ensure this. If it's not a one time audit, it implies that we will permanently have three variants. This would be a lot of effort, for a tiny gain. After all, there is absolutely no difference in ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. > Trivial concern solved with a news item. As I've said before, if the intent is to do a tree-wide audit, then this should be done in a way that has no impact on users. For example, by adding a comment, instead of changing the LICENSE variable. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
