As stated on main Bazaar site, it comes under dual-license: GPL v2 AND GPL v3 while ebuild states only GPL v2. Provided ebuild fixes the problem (no release change needed I think). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 160999 [details] Fixed ebuild Fixed ebuild
Hi, please provide diff'd ebuilds next time. The '||' operator is a prefix operator in ebuilds as opposed to what you would expect in bash. LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL3)"
But there is no information inside sources about GPL-3 license. They are GPL-2 only as I see. The only paragraph about GPL-3 I found was (in doc/developers/HACKING.txt): Copyright --------- The copyright policy for bzr was recently made clear in this email (edited for grammatical correctness):: The attached patch cleans up the copyright and license statements in the bzr source. It also adds tests to help us remember to add them with the correct text. We had the problem that lots of our files were "Copyright Canonical Development Ltd" which is not a real company, and some other variations on this theme. Also, some files were missing the GPL statements. I want to be clear about the intent of this patch, since copyright can be a little controversial. 1) The big motivation for this is not to shut out the community, but just to clean up all of the invalid copyright statements. 2) It has been the general policy for bzr that we want a single copyright holder for all of the core code. This is following the model set by the FSF, which makes it easier to update the code to a new license in case problems are encountered. (For example, if we want to upgrade the project universally to GPL v3 it is much simpler if there is a single copyright holder). It also makes it clearer if copyright is ever debated, there is a single holder, which makes it easier to defend in court, etc. (I think the FSF position is that if you assign them copyright, they can defend it in court rather than you needing to, and I'm sure Canonical would do the same). As such, Canonical has requested copyright assignments from all of the major contributers. So they just mention possibility to move to GPL-3, but they are still GPL-2. If you have any further information feel free to reopen.
