Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100 > Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly >> which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody >> decides to release GPL-2.5. > > That's an argument strongly in favour of ranged specs. A huge number of > packages are licensed under "GPL 2 or later", and currently most ebuilds > incorrectly use LICENSE="GPL-2" for these. Even changing these to > LICENSE="|| ( GPL-2 GPL-3 )" just shifts the problem around a bit. With > CRAN "GPL 2 or later" translates to "GPL (>= 2)", which is a much more > accurate description of a package's license.
Either requires the same amount of work; auditing a package and correcting
the LICENSE variable. I think we could take a previous idea of Flameeyes'
and add a GPL-2+ or GPL-2_or_later licence.
As for other licences, i have no real opinion. It seems like a complex
solution for a small problem though.
--
looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees
this latitude weakens my knees
EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
