Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> However, some modules says GPLv2 in the files, and the GPL part of
>> libidn uses GPLv3. It seems confusing to refer to GPLv2. This text is
>> not modified by gnulib-tool now. How about the following patch?
>
> There are many
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> However, some modules says GPLv2 in the files, and the GPL part of
> libidn uses GPLv3. It seems confusing to refer to GPLv2. This text is
> not modified by gnulib-tool now. How about the following patch?
There are many more files like this. Until the issue between Bret
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007-10-28 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * gnulib-tool: Allow specifying the LGPL version number through
> --lgpl=2 or --lgpl=3.
> (func_usage): Document --lgpl with argument.
> Handle --lgpl=... arguments.
> (func_i
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The complexity of distributing a library under one license and the
> > corresponding tools under another license is very manageable. I do this
> > for libiconv and gettext. You distribute both COPYINGv2 and COPYINGv3, and
> > add a statement to the README, saying that the
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> > In the current situation (where we care about the distinction between
>> > LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ but where GPL means GPLv3+ always),
>>
>> That hasn't been clear to me: GnuTLS still uses GPLv2 for compatibility
>> with other GPLv2 applicat
Hi Simon,
> > In the current situation (where we care about the distinction between
> > LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ but where GPL means GPLv3+ always),
>
> That hasn't been clear to me: GnuTLS still uses GPLv2 for compatibility
> with other GPLv2 applications/libraries, and we can't (and don't) use
> GPL
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I noticed this for the dummy.c module, which after been imported with
>> --lgpl said:
>>
>>This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public Licens
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I noticed this for the dummy.c module, which after been imported with
> --lgpl said:
>
>This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
>the Free Software Foundati
I noticed this for the dummy.c module, which after been imported with
--lgpl said:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License
