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
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
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
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
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,
On 10 May 2012 21:39, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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,
