Tino Didriksen <[email protected]> writes: > I've looked a bit at the license information for trunk pairs to make > sure I get the package information correct, and it's quite a mess. For > most pairs, I don't know what to do. > > The license is generally not applied to any of the files, so I can > only go by COPYING which is GPLv2-or-later or GPLv3-or-later. > Sometimes autogen.sh is the only file saying anything, and it says > GPLv2-only, but since that's usually just a copy from another pair, > does it really speak for the pair? > > If a pair or source language truly is GPLv2-only, then that is > internally incompatible with other pairs that are GPLv3-or-later. > > E.g. #1, apertium-sme-nob is licensed GPLv3-or-later, but depends on > apertium-nob which is unclear. apertium-nob.nob.dix says "GPL only", > which means what? GPLv1-only? Or any GPL version 1 through inf?
That's copied from Norsk ordbank, which says "GPL only" and links to the gnu.org's GPL license terms. Before GPL3, that link showed GPL2, now it goes to GPL3. So that's at the very least GPL2-or-later, which is what I've now added in a comment in the *dix files of sme/nob/nno. Should there be a policy for new data? Like GPLv2-or-later or GPLv3-or-later. (I think having anything be GPLvN-only could lead to trouble, but I don't know if people have strong feelings on this.) -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer GPG: 0x766AC60C
pgp2YCL6HKMox.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
