On 2018-04-29 Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmas...@outlook.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 29 April 2018 10:11 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] > > 0.4.0-1 says "Switch to LGPL-2.1+ for libexif-gtk 0.4.0.". Is this > > correct? While COPYING contains a copy of LGPL-2.1 only a single c/h > > file (gtk-exif-util.h) has this license in its copyright header.
> The po files and tests/test-libexif-gtk.c are also licensed under > LGPL-2.1. I see your point, though. The other files are LGPL-2. > However, all of those files have "either version 2 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version" written in them, which would be > okay. > Having said that, it may be better to fix d/copyright to account for the > mixed LGPL-2/2.1 files. What do you think? It's no problem for me to do. That would be great. TIA. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'