> 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
> 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"
>> pr
> 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
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 distin
On 10 May 2012 21:39, Ulrich Mueller 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", which implies
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,
