On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote: > Alex Mestiashvili <[email protected]> writes: >> Hi, >> >> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered >> DFSG-compatible ? >> >> Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be >> applied. >> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and >> also include the original license in d/copyright ? > > It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is. > If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the > existing text, then they can modify it under GPL-2+ terms. There are > other examples in the archive of this (e.g. CECILL). > > Cheers, > Walter Landry >
I see. Now I also found this license (thanks to codesearch.debian.net) in openbabel package as LGPL-2.1 compatible. Thank you! Alex
