On 02/26/2018 06:03 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> 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. :-)
Well, I am afraid it's not really interesting. Obviously I've never actually read the text of LGPL, and misinterpret the section 2, especially subsection c). There are way to many "musts" to my taste :) > >> 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? Why what ? This question is not relevant anymore after I realized that the license in the topic is a hidden LGPL. Best regards, Alex
