https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskar...@redhat.com> --- Reply from upstream: > Hi, > > Well, at the time we started the project the version 3 wasn't out, so I > have no idea what we "indented" to do. > > For ddccontrol, it's very clear. COPYING contains GPLv2, but all sources > files clearly use the header stating GPLv2+. > > For ddccontrol-db, COPYING also contains GPLv2, but we do not put any > copyright header in the files contributed by ourselves or users, so I'm > not clear if we meant GPLv2+ or just GPLv2 (or even public domain, > actually). > > I'd say the conservative option is GPLv2. But I assume no one would be > offended if you put GPLv2+. > > Hope this helps. > > Best, > > Nicolas I think it could be also licensed under GPL+ as the GPLv2 license text states: > If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, > you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software > Foundation. I will use GPLv2+ to be consistent with ddccontrol package, upstream notified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
