On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@sfconservancy.org> wrote: >> On 10 June 2013 18:17, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I am guessing it is LGPLv2 only. The license is in the COPYING >>> file, >>> not in each SVG. >> >>> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING > > Daniel Narvaez wrote at 12:27 (EDT) on Monday: >> Is the "or later" something that goes in the per file headers only (vs >> the COPYING file)? There are C files which have the "or later" but the >> svg ones have no header at all so... > > Actually, while I haven't done a full analysis, I can't see any cursory > reason the whole repository it *isn't* LGPLv2-or-later. Note the > following text from LGPLv2: > > Each version [of the LGPL] is given a distinguishing version number. > If the Library specifies a version number of this License which > applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of > following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any > later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the > Library does not specify a license version number, you may choose any > version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. > > The last sentence is the key. Most of the files don't specify a version > number, which means if we believe they're LGPL'd, they must be > LGPLv2-or-later. > > > But it sounds like there's still a relicensing task to be done for some > code? Does Sugar Labs need Conservancy's help with that?
For the Javascipt/HTML5 work, we are going to use Apache and would like to fold in the artwork that is currently LGPL. So presumably a second license is required. Any protocol for this that you recommend? I'm happy to reach out to the authors. thx -walter > -- > Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel