user/transmission: update license

[ile6695]

Transmission can be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU GPLv2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2), the GNU GPLv3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUGPLv3), or any future license endorsed by Mnemosyne LLC.

In addition, linking to and/or using OpenSSL is allowed.

Description

One line change that is more of a documentation issue.

Checklist

Before this pull request is reviewed, certain conditions must be met.

The following must be true for all changes:

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md
• I acknowledge that overtly not following the above or the below will result in my pull request getting closed

The following must be true for template/package changes:

• I have read Packaging.md
• I have built and tested my changes on my machine

The following must be true for new package submissions:

• I will take responsibility for my template and keep it up to date

[q66]

i don't see what this fixes then? the new license string doesn't match what you put in the description

[ile6695]

If there ever is GPLv4, the GPL-2.0-or-later would allow its usage, while the project only says GPLv2 or GPLv3 are allowed.

[q66]

then use an spdx license expression that actually matches reality

[ile6695]

Erm... Could you explain why it does not match reality? Dual license does not force you to have both.

[q66]

we have SPDX license expressions to be properly able to express multi-licensing

[ile6695]

I don't mind which you choose to have. Multi-license works fine as well. You could have started with that.

However I feel like I don't want to be associated with your project after the feedback that you're giving to those who try to contribute. When the founder behaves like this, it's never a good look for anyone.

[q66]

hm, what have i done exactly? i could have started with that if i from the beginning actually understood what the PR is supposed to solve, which wasn't clarified

[ile6695]

what the PR is supposed to solve

Please read the Description-part for the issue.

which wasn't clarified

Don't gaslight, please. The 1st comment explains why the current license is not the right one.

[q66]

yes, you clarified that after i asked about it

the PR description says what the licensing is, but initially to me, our current license string seemed to be the more accurate one given there is no GPLv4 (and won't be for a while)

the distro doesn't choose the license, it declares the available licenses in the packaging metadata, and we have expressions to allow this to be described, so GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only would've been better than both (probably still not entirely accurate due to the openssl exception, but that's probably being overly pedantic, especially considering we only ship openssl version with the apache license now)

[ile6695]

I'll admit that the openssl could make the spdx more complicated, but stating that it "does not match reality" instead of saying what is wrong with it is just too much for me.

[q66]

not sure what to say to that, you can do whatever you want

i was confused about this PR and as far as i can tell, changing it to a worse expression results in the metadata not matching the actual state of the licensing as well as the existing one, so i'm still not sure what is wrong with my statement