On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:37:02 +0100 "Nicolas Roard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's under the LGPL, not the GPL. OK, so the README should probably be fixed. > For the version, no idea -- I mean, > iirc I simply used the version that was available at the time. What > are the differences with the latest version ? LGPL 3 has the same anti-DRM stuff that's in GPL 3. I haven't read the LGPL 3, so I don't know all the details. I don't really care which one you use. I don't think LGPL 2.1 causes any problems, if you just want to license it under "LGPL 2.1 only". I was just going through the licenses for the GNUstep-related packages in Debian, and noticed that the license for Camaelon wasn't completely clear. But it's best to specify the version. (If you don't specify the version, then according to the FSF, you can use any version of the LGPL published by the FSF.) > If it's necessary we can > relicence it without much trouble (have to check the logs but I > believe that only me and quentin did work on it). The main idea behind > the licencing simply was that, considering ObjC, and considering the > "plugin" nature of Camaelon, it had to be under the LGPL and not the > GPL. Yup, that's reasonable. -- Hubert Chathi - Email/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
