On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Raeven Bathory wrote: > [1]http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Loui <[2]louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:58:20 +0300 > "Roman Kyrylych" <[3]roman.kyrylych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2008/3/30, Loui <[4]louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. > > > Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state > what > > > licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of > those > > > in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean. > > > > GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 > > only + GPL3 or later. ;) > > > > Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite > understand why that doesn't work. Thanks. > > [5]http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses Excuse me but why is this being discussed again? The was an extensive discussion on arch-dev-public in the past. Decisions were made. If you have anything against how GPL licenses are treated in the PKGBUILD license array please read the discussion and comment on it. Dont start a new discussion from scratch. Greg
