> Is this not covered by "any later version" ? Not at all.
This is an user option: some may want the old 2.1 others 3 (or 4 or 5). By pushing the latest license version you are removing the option. Plus, by using only the latest version you are retroactively changing the license for existing releases. It's not good to have ambiguity about the licensing terms. A PR about license terms does not feel to me like something a first time contributor should do... It's no biggie to change some URLs in pom.xml but it would have more (legal) weight if done by somebody with some standing within the project. --emi joi, 3 nov. 2022, 18:35 Ian Turton <ijtur...@gmail.com> a scris: > > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 15:18, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I was browsing GeoTools and I see conflicting evidence about the exact >> license: >> >> 1. https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/main/LICENSE.md lists LGPL >> v2.1 >> 2. The GitHub README has the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html >> which goes to LGPL v3 >> 3. The website https://geotools.org/about.html correctly links to >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html >> 4. The pom.xml ( >> https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/main/pom.xml#L35 >> ), which is part of the binary JARs, mentions >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.txt which again serves LGPL v3. >> > > Is this not covered by "any later version" ? > >> >> Basically, you need to make sure that all link to gnu.org point >> towards the specific version otherwise GNU will replace the version in >> time and always serve the latest LGPL version... >> >> A PR for Maven, etc. should be easy, just use >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt >> >> > We're happy to receive pull requests at any time as we are a volunteer > managed project. > > Ian > >
_______________________________________________ GeoTools-GT2-Users mailing list GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
