[Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions
paul at city-fan.org
Wed Aug 8 14:03:52 UTC 2007
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:33 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> I presume, though it's not explicitly stated, that GPL+ can also be used
>>> where the license is explicitly given as "GPL version 1 or later" (e.g.
>>> for perl and all same-as-perl licensed modules)?
>> Yes, this correct.
>>> Similarly, I take LGPL+ to be suitable for packages licensed as "LGPL v2
>>> (not 2.1) or later" as well as for LGPL of unspecified version?
>> Not quite:
>> LGPL+ is only for unversioned LGPL (I've never seen this, but it's
>> LGPLv2+ is for LGPL 2/2.1 or later.
> Can you explain the difference, considering there is no version 1 of the
> LGPL ?
Also considering that the "Full name" column of the licensing page on
the wiki specifically refers to v2.1 onwards (and not v2 onwards) for
the LGPL2 and LGPL2+ short names.
More information about the Fedora-packaging