Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:30:48PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> RMS asked if there are is reason GnuTLS should remain LGPLv2.1+ instead >> of using LGPLv3+. >> >> The reasons I'm familiar with includes lynx under GPLv2-only. Gnucash >> is also said to contain GPLv2-only code. >> >> Are there other reasons not to use LGPLv3+? > > Here's a list of packages from Fedora Raw Hide which link against GnuTLS > and have license tags indicating GPLv2-only licensing: > > aria2-0.12.0-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > climm-0.6.3-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > cups-1.3.8-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > ekg2-0.2-0.4.rc1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > gobby-0.4.6-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > hardinfo-0.4.2.3-6.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > jd-2.0.1-0.2.beta080901.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > snort-2.8.1-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > sobby-0.4.4-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > xfce4-mailwatch-plugin-1.0.1-10.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2 > > (Note that this list is not necessarily complete since it won't include > packages which have not yet had their License tags audited.)
Thanks for the list! I tried to do some systematic searches, but the debian copyright information tends to be incorrect (not mentioning versions) or difficult to parse. I recognize cups, snort and ekg, and they are fairly well known. /Simon _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
