[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only

[Roberto Alsina]

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 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.
> >
> > 
> >
> > 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.