[RFC] Common license header guideline should prefer GPLv2+ over GPLv2 only

[Alex G.]

I think this would be a good move for interoperability, so that GPLv3
projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed (e.g.
device drivers). I'm strictly talking about listing the preferred
license; it's still up to contributors whether they want v2 or v2+.

[1] Listed GPLv2+ as preferred, but it was recently changed without any
explanation. Stefan, do you have more details on that?

Alex

[1] https://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Common_License_Header

[Patrick Georgi]

2016-01-22 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alex G. :
> so that GPLv3 projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed

They don't even accept code under BSD type licenses.

Patrick

[Patrick Georgi]

To add:

2016-01-22 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alex G. :
> I think this would be a good move for interoperability, so that GPLv3
> projects (e.g. SeaBIOS) may take code from coreboot where needed (e.g.
> device drivers). I'm strictly talking about listing the preferred
> license; it's still up to contributors whether they want v2 or v2+.

Contributors can already decide if they use v2 or v2+, and we have
numerous examples of both in our tree.

Since coreboot in total won't ever become v2+ (because we have too
many v2 parts with authors gone or unwilling to change it),
recommending to use that may set the wrong example.

Since there's also a risk in the "or later" statement (as can be seen
by the scope creep in v3, who knows what v4 will bring), I'm uneasy
with recommending that when not strictly necessary (I'd consider a
project that's based on "or later" licensing to be such a case).

Patrick