On 05/02/2012 10:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > I know it's a pain to update lgpl-2.1.texi, even if the update is not > part of the official license, but it would be nicer if the two > recommendations were synced with regards to listing the same address.
It would be nicer, but updating license text (no matter how good the reason and how trivial the change) is a pretty serious business, and it may be better to leave sleeping dogs lie. > Am I correct that it is okay to list <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/> as > the preferred contact address in the headers of my files, even when > using LGPLv2? That's my feeling, yes.
