Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: > I wonder if we should seek a statement from KDE allowing the use of > GPL3+ for our packages. > > Meanwhile, the way I read it, this package should be '(gpl2 gpl3 lpgl2.0 > lgpl2.0+). I would change the comment to something like: > > ;; This is distributed under either gpl2 or gpl3, but some files are > ;; covered by other licenses.
Oops, I read the copyright file wrong, I thought the top section was GPL, but it is in fact LGPL. So the license field should be '(lgpl2.0 lgpl3.0 lgpl2.0+) And the comment would be along the lines of "This package is distributed under either LGPL2 or LGPL3, but some files are explicitly LGPL2+.". It would be nice to clarify this with KDE.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
