Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 02:10:04PM +0200, > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > >> Is echoping licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv2-or-later? > > v2 only > >> I can't find anything conclusive in the echoping sources (probably >> something you want to fix :)). > > COPYING says: > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, June 1991 > > To me, in the absence of other mention, it means v2 only. > > COPYING later says: > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program > specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and > "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and > conditions either of that version or of any later version published by > the Free Software Foundation. > > And the magical sentence "any later version" does not appear in the > source code (only in autotools-generated files).
I didn't see a specific version number mentioned in the _program_ (there are no license headers in the *.c files). The license continues: If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. FWIW, adding a license headers to each file (and making sure it specify the version of the GPL) would help to clarify the intended license. Including a verbatim copy of the GPL doesn't mean the program is automatically licensed under the GPL. There needs to be some statement that binds the program with the license. Anyway, I think we have established a long list of GPLv2-only projects that use GnuTLS that needs to be studied more closely before we make any decision to move to LGPLv3+. /Simon _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
