>>>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote: > Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're > GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in > /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your > option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's > strange that the FSF doesn't mention them.
It would be strange if the GPL-1 wasn't GPL-compatible. > Either way, the groups should definitely be expanded. I just went though a recent stage3. We would need the following licenses in addition to @FSF-APPROVED and @OSI-APPROVED to cover all packages in it: BZIP2 CRACKLIB FLEX freedist LGPL-2 libgcc (add-on clause for GPL-2) libstdc++ (add-on clause for GPL-2) PAM (identical to "|| ( BSD GPL-2 )"?) popt (identical to MIT) SMAIL tcp_wrappers_license They all look like free software licenses to me (but IANAL), with the exception of "freedist" which only says "Freely Distributable". It is used by two packages in stage3, namely sys-apps/man-pages and sys-apps/man-pages-posix. Ulrich
