Hi, On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:43 PM Sean Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu 05 Sep 2024 at 11:23pm +08, Bo YU wrote: > > > But you suggest me to apply LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception for > > ocaml-lib/pmap* and ocaml-lib/pset.*, I am not sure when I look at > > these files again. For example, the copyright from > > ocaml-lib/pmap.ml[2] > > I'm suggesting it from looking at the file headers themselves. Don't > they say it has the exception too?
Yeah, they said they have exceptions on the headers themselves. I mean I ignore these exceptions from headers in the last upload(my fault). This time, I would like to ask for your help to confirm, can I use `LGPL-2-with-linking-exception` instead of `LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception` from your original suggestions[6]? Because from my understanding, for these files, the copyright license(LGPL-2)is below from LICENSE[7] with expectations in headers themselves. ``` The following files are modified versions of map and set from the Objective Caml library and are distributed under the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 as below. ocaml-lib/pmap.mli ocaml-lib/pmap.ml ocaml-lib/pset.mli ocaml-lib/pset.ml ``` Is this okay? [6]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2024/09/msg00005.html [7]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/LICENSE#L69 > > > Thanks for reminding this again. Here I have one question that needs > > to be verified. Taking these files as an example[4], could we convert > > into [5]? > > Yes, that's fine. I know what you mean about amplifying rights claims, > but copyright is not the same as an AUTHORS file saying who made the > most substantive contributions. > That is great, I understand it now. Thanks for your time and help! BR, Bo > -- > Sean Whitton
