2008/4/26 Kai Sterker <
address@hidden>:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Mathieu Bridon <
address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm still advancing the RPM inclusion in Fedora repositories.
>
> One remark was made by the Fedora reviewer about the license of adonthell /
> wastesedge: i used the value "GPLv2" for the "License" tag, and looking
> quickly at the sources, he thought I should use the value "GPLv2+".
Ok, thanks.
> However, I didn't want to simply correct this value without asking
> previously here, as this change might imply licensing issues (I'm not an
> expert for legal questions, but I understood that GPLv2+ would mean
> implicitly GPLv3).
As far as my understanding goes, code licensed GPLv2+ can be used in
GPLv3 software. Pure GPLv2 code not. But then I might be totally
wrong. I am pretty sure though that I couldn't go ahead and simply
change the license from GPLv2+ to GPL3 (unless all contributors would
agree).
I'm thinking the same... that my understanding might be totally wrong ^^
Those legal issues are far too complicated, and it's easy to make something wrong. That's why I wanted to ask before I corrected my spec file.
> So, what exactly is the license for adonthell / wastesedge? GPLv2? GPLv3?
> GPLv2+?
GPLv2+. It's a bit ambiguous as most v0.3 source files do not contain
the full GPL header (v0.4 sources do, though), but they all point to
the COPYING file which states GPLv2 or later.
Then 0.4 will defnitely correct a lot of issues. Any idea about a release date?
Thanks
Mathieu