[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
hollunder at lavabit.com
Thu Aug 26 14:38:43 EDT 2010
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 at 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.
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'.
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
More information about the aur-general