"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> wrote on 01/27/2006 02:27:48 PM:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
> >>Also note that the FSF would _really_ prefer this language to stop
being
> >>used; the official name of that license is now the Lesser General
Public
> >>License, not 'Library'. There _is_ a 'Library General Public License',
> >>but its use is strongly discouraged.
> >
> >
> > Given the second sentence, I'd say you're plain wrong in the first
sentence:
> > If it refers to an existing license, the author shouldn't stop
referring to
> > that license with its real name, shouldn't it?
>
> Sorry, poor choice of wording. I wrote the first sentence before doing
> the more extended research for the second one...
>
> You are correct: there is a 'Library' GPL, and Neon could be licensed
> under that (I haven't checked). It would be preferable for it to be
> under the 'Lesser' GPL instead, but that is off-topic for this list
> anyway :-)
This seems to explain it all:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
The two licenses are the same, they just changed the name.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 27 20:30:30 2006