On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:19 +0100, Jens Georg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having dug through the variants of (L)GPL license texts lately, I
> noticed that we apparenly have put Rygel and GUPnP under a weird
> mixure
> of LGPL v2 versions. The text and version comes from the "old"
> Library
> GPL 2, but
Hi,
having dug through the variants of (L)GPL license texts lately, I
noticed that we apparenly have put Rygel and GUPnP under a weird mixure
of LGPL v2 versions. The text and version comes from the "old" Library
GPL 2, but as a license name we use "Lesser GPL" in the headers but
Library GPL
Hi;
On 27 October 2015 at 11:19, Jens Georg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having dug through the variants of (L)GPL license texts lately, I noticed
> that we apparenly have put Rygel and GUPnP under a weird mixure of LGPL v2
> versions. The text and version comes from the "old" Library GPL
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:19 +0100, Jens Georg wrote:
> Does anyone know whether I can just do a "soft" relicensing to
> "proper"
> LGPLv2.1+ by myself (the license says version 2 or later) to clean
> this
> up or whether I need to involve all contributing parties (oh dear)?
Yes, go right ahead: