On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > In License, you have: > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1. > > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 3 of GNU Lesser General Public > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3. > --- > > These are missleading. <cut out stuff about GPL-3> > I do not think you need these additional (and very misleading when mentioning > GPL3) text here. They are properly addressed in respective license or in > source code as "or (at your option) any later version."
You seem to have misread the license file (I didn't check, but only read what you quoted). It talks about LGPL-3, not about GPL-3. It's not misleading, just complete. The files are distributed with multiple licenses, namely LGPL-2, LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3. Later versions are automatically added to that list as they are released. As always when receiving multiple licensed files, debian/copyright should list them all. Listing licenses which aren't released yet isn't possible of course, but listing all currently available options is a good idea IMO. That's what the part you quoted does. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
