Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Fedora is making a push to clarify licensing on all packages -
> GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+
> are the acceptable license tags for rpm packaging at this point. ("+"
> means "or later").
Of course, the tag I put on the package is in no way binding for sgi -
it's just supposed to reflect the license inside. But it does point out
a bit of confusion now that gplv3 is on the scene.
I'll follow fedora guidelines & put GPL+ and LGPLv2+ in the field for
now; when I get clarification from SGI I'll fix up if needed.
> Looking, for example, at mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c:
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> it makes no mention of GPL _version_.
> With all the ruckus lately over GPLv3, could sgi please clarify? Since
> the included COPYING file says LGPL 2.1 and GPL2, I assume that LGPLv2
> and GPLv2 are appropriate for the package.
> It'd be tedious, but you may wish to specify exactly which version of
> the license in the actual source files...