On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 00:09 -0500, Rudy Godoy Guillén wrote: > > Would you consider putting it under the LGPL (2.1 or later) instead of > > the GPL? That way it is more easily distributable as part of nss-ldapd. > > I might consider yes, but I wonder what's the issue about GPL?
I don't think there's a real issue per se (I'm not a license expert) but I would like to limit the number of licenses that are used in the package. That makes things more manageable for me (at least it keeps debian/copyright simpler). Most other po files that have a clear copyright statement contain something like "This file is distributed under the same license as the nss-ldapd package." Also, while nitpicking: "the GNU GPL license" should probably be "the GNU GPL" or "the GNU General Public License; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version." Thanks. -- -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
