On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 13:26 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 11:57 +0000, Aurélien Leblond wrote: > > > > On Jan 12, 2012 7:09 AM, "Brendan Jones" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 01/01/2012 03:55 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello everyone, > > >> > > >> During this jolly holidays, I worked a bit on the AMS LV2 plugins. > > >> > > >> The version 0.0.6 can be downloaded here: > > >> > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/avwlv2/files/avw.lv2.0.0.6.tar.gz/download > > > > > > can you just clarify the license for this for me? The Fedora review > > has asked me wether it is GPLv2 (as in the license file) or GPLv3 as > > per the sourceforge page? > > > > I'm actually not sure here! > > The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS. > > I chose the v3 kind of "by accident" on Sourceforge (i.e. I didn't pay > > attention!) > > > > To be honest: > > - I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2 > > and the version 3 of the GPL. > > - The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just > > like that? > > > > (it's crazy how although the concept of open-source is easy to grasp, > > it gets quickly more complex when you dive into the licenses > > themselves) > > > > Any advice here guys? It's my first open-source project and I'm kind > > of lost! > > > > @Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to the GPLv3? > > > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > > > Aurélien > > > IAAL ^^^^
pardon, IANAL > , but IIUC GPLv2 by default means "GPLv2 or later", since there's a > note "or (at your option) any later version". > Some coders reedited this to "GPLv2 only". GPLv3 is controversial. > > - Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
