On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:38:43 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc
Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.
most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.
Ronald
I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'.
Just in case: if a package is licensed under "GPLvX and later" and Arch says it's GPLvY (with Y >= X) and doesn't say anything about "or later", that's not a problem, for Arch, really, it will be using one of the allowed licenses in any case. It may be a problem if it ends combining it with another program which requires one of the "later" GPLs, though.