> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered > DFSG-compatible ? > > Section 2 doesn't sound very good
That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please? I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-) > but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be applied. Sure. The other sections gave me the same impression. > Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ Why? > and also include the original license in d/copyright?
