hi Francesco, > I would say that the missing detail is that license compatibility is > not a transitive relation!
indeed! I knew that but somehow it fell off my consciousness while looking at that wikipedia diagram > Well, before I start sending patches (for instance to reintroduce GPL-2 > in the Apache-2.0 row), some questions: > > * are you going to completely ignore GPL-1 (assuming it's no longer so > widely adopted)? I am asking because I see that you included it in > the Artistic row, but not in other rows (such as GPL-3 or MPL-2.0 > or ...) > > * why did you drop LGPL-3 from the GPL-2 row? they are incompatible... > > * why did you introduce LGPL-2+, LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3 in the MPL-1.1 > row? as far as I know, the LGPL licenses are (linking-)compatible > with MPL-1.1 ... sorry, that's all sloppiness on my part, at the end of a long day. please send me a patch, if you don't mind. as for GPL-1, either way is fine (it wasn't included in adequate as of 8y ago, and I only see GPL-1+ references in my local system, so it certainly seems reasonable to drop it)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
