[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only

Ronald van Haren pressh at gmail.com
Thu Aug 26 07:12:23 EDT 2010

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I just looked up the GPL notation again.
>> >> Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki:
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
>> >>
>> >> ..
>> >> The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions.
>> >> For (L)GPL software, the convention is:
>> >>
>> >>     * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version
>> >>     * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only
>> >>     * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem.
>> >> How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only?
>> >
>> > Here's my proposed scheme:
>> > GPL  = Any GPL license
>> > GPL1 = GPL1 only
>> > GPL2 = GPL2 only
>> > GPL3 = GPL3 only
>> >
>> > If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array.
>> > Future proof.
>> >
>> I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's
>> always GPL2 or higher....
> It exists as part of the license at any rate.
>> either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people
>> start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is
>> removed...there can always be something.
> I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?

sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about
what I was saying..

either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public
License version 2 or, at your option any later version'.

In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your
scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point.

My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are
lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to
create a naming scheme which will fit all.

The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages.
IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct
me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have
just GPL3 in the license array?

The GPL3 text says the following:
 14. Revised Versions of this License.

  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

  If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

  Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions.  However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

so as long as the program does not specify 'any later version' or
states just the version to be used it is fine if I understand it


More information about the aur-general mailing list