On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:10:46PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hi *, > > To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the > LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also > called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I > would consider that copyright files saying "you will find the Library GNU > Public License in /usr/whatever..." do not become "broken" because of this > change. > > The funny thing is that policy says that packages licensed under the > "LGPL" should refer to the LGPL file in base-files, but does not > explicitly say what LGPL stands for :-). > > I think this may now be ambiguous, but acceptable. > > Does somebody feel the need to clarificate this, so that it explicitly > says whether it refers to the old LGPL, the new one, or both of them? absolutly. You can't change the license that software is not your own. If the software was released under the Library GPL then it's been released under the Library GPL not the Lesser GPL.
Some Packages might offer an upgrade clause (such as, under the GPL v2.0 or later...) but for those that don't, the Library GPL needs to still be around and pointed to by the appropriate packages. > > Thanks. > > -- > "6988d902e18a76d0abcd09ec8b6fa612" (a truly random sig) > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< * * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * =========================================================================
pgpTBhW0LFIBy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
