Re: GPLv3 license
lör 2010-08-28 klockan 14:26 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries: > The author confirmed in bugzilla that he was happy with it being labeled > GPLv2 and changed the COPYING file over before I merged. > http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2905 > > We seem to have missed some of the GPL references in the update. Sorry. > > Are there any other requirements that you know of apart from switching > the 3 to a 2 in those statements? I don't think so. But please copy the confirmation message and reference the bugzilla entry in the commit for copyright tracking purposes. Regards Henrik
Re: GPLv3 license
Henrik Nordström wrote: Just noticed the external_acl/eDirectory_userip is licensed by GPLv3 or later. This is inconsistent with the rest of the code which is GPLv2 or later, and is also what we announce as main license for the distribution as a whole. I see a risk here that the eDirectory_userip gets mislabeled as having a GPLv2 or later license like the rest. I do not think moving Squid as such to GPLv3 or later is appropriate solution. The author confirmed in bugzilla that he was happy with it being labeled GPLv2 and changed the COPYING file over before I merged. http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2905 We seem to have missed some of the GPL references in the update. Sorry. Are there any other requirements that you know of apart from switching the 3 to a 2 in those statements? Amos -- Please be using Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.7 Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.1
GPLv3 license
Just noticed the external_acl/eDirectory_userip is licensed by GPLv3 or later. This is inconsistent with the rest of the code which is GPLv2 or later, and is also what we announce as main license for the distribution as a whole. I see a risk here that the eDirectory_userip gets mislabeled as having a GPLv2 or later license like the rest. I do not think moving Squid as such to GPLv3 or later is appropriate solution. Regards Henrik
