To be honest, I have never studied the later version 3 of the LGPL, nor how it
differs from version 2.1, so I cannot say that I permit anyone to change the
licence of polyparse from LGPL 2.1 to LGPL 3, because I do not know what that
would entail.
Regards,
Malcolm
On 23 May 2016, at 20:15, Dmitry Bogatov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The polyparse darcs repo includes the text of the licence in the LICENCE-LGP=
>> L file. I apologise for the oversight which means the licence text is not i=
>> ncluded in the cabal package. It is LGPL version 2.1. I am not an expert o=
>> n whether LGPL 2.1 permits a later LGPL licence to be applied instead, but i=
>> t does appear to permit conversion to GPL 2 or later. I presume this means
>> t=
>> he later versions of the LGPL are not automatically allowed.
>
> Yes, they are not automatically forward-safe, unfortunately. But it is
> good thing to add 'or any later version (at your option)'
> clause.
>
> There is essay about compatibility, it may be of use. One day I saw
> table of license compatibilies, but can't find it now.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html
>
> Just to be sure (my english is not native), is it true, that polyparse is
> licensed under terms of Lesser GNU General Public License, version 2.1 or
> later (at my option)?
>
> --
> Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff
> Accept-Language: eo,en,ru
> X-Keep-In-CC: yes
> X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
