[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only

[Ray Rashif]

On 26 August 2010 21:23, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder at lavabit.com> wrote:
> Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one
> license only.

You're right, I totally misused the term "exception" [1]. Let's forget
about semantics. As I understood your initial concern, we have no
"standard" in place to make it clear which version of the GPL a
software package is under. Is that correct?

What I proposed only makes the distinction between a GPL and a
GPLn-only license by the use of the word "custom" in the license
array, and a license file in the appropriate place (because there is
added text). Nothing more, nothing less. This would definitely be
"clear", because obviously, from a visual perspective, "Licenses:
GPL3" and "Licenses: custom:GPL3" are clearly not the same.

Loui's proposal is good, but as Ronald mentioned, we don't have
anything to do with GPL1 anymore. Moreover, even if we didn't count
GPL1, there is no way to link GPL to GPL2 _and_ GPL3 on the
filesystem.

We could also go with "Licenses: GPL3-only", or a derivative of that,
as long as it does not require change in a lot of our buildscripts
(which would be the case for the "+" proposal and I don't think this
is strong enough of a case to motivate that).

[1] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD