On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote:
Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each one saying they'd been checked already.
I think that this should at least be added. If some things are more conservatively labeled as v2 when it should be v2+ it doesn't cause all that much harm. Over time the licenses would get updated, and then we'd have more useful metadata.
The whole concept of GPL-compatible doesn't work when GPL2 isn't compatible with GPL3, and vice-versa, and all the way back to 1. At best we can have GPL3-compatible or GPL2-compatible or whatever. What happens when GPL4 comes out and we need to edit the group again? What will that break?
