"We will release our contributions to Gentoo Linux as free software, under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or later, at our discretion.)" Specifying the GPL here in such an overly broad way makes no sense whatsoever IMHO. Patches to externally-developed software, for instance, should clearly be licensed under the same terms as the software itself so that they can be incorporated upstream. This section should be clarified/amended accordingly.
Additionally, in the case of software like Apache (which is made available under a Free, but GPL-incompatible, license) binaries produced from sources with GPLed patches applied would be legally undistributable. This would bite (at least) GRP and anyone attempting to create their own binary distribution based on Gentoo (e.g. LiveCDs created via Catalyst).
the document is meant as a general overview the 'contributions' the document refers to is things like our ebuilds, portage, catalyst, etc... it *isnt* refering to patches we produce ... we send those upstream and release licensing/whatever restrictions acording to how upstream has released their products that pretty much makes the binary GRP arguement invalid we don't fork projects like redhat does ... that's why that paragraph covers the 'Gentoo stuff' and not everything Gentoo developers produce
