tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" in "pkgsrc"

Matthias Scheler <> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 07:44:07AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> "superceded" is not the same as "is textually and therefore legally the
>> same".  So I would recommend that you run wdiff.  If they just changed
>> the name of the license, then yes it's the same.  If there are changes
>> in terms, then we should add it separately. 
> I found more information here in the meantime:
> Quoting this web page:
>       Old versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>           * GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1
>       This license used to be called the GNU Library General Public License:
>           * GNU LIbrary General Public License, version 2.0
>> (I'm assuming you have an
>> actual package that references the Library GPL 2.0, and that you've
>> already checked with upstream that this isn't just confusion and they
>> don't mean regular LGPL.)
> I found out in the meantime that there are multiple packages which use
> this license e.g. "glib2", "pango" or "atk". The "atk" packagae doesn't
> define a license, the other two packages use "gnu-lgpl-v2". Based on
> the above information from "" I think this is correct.

We have to stick to textual comparison of what is included in or
referenced in the package to what's in /usr/pkgsrc/licenses.  But I see
that /usr/pkgsrc/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2 says GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE, and that makes sense - it was smart of FSF to bump the number
when the name but not the acronum changed.

Attachment: pgpHBR6idGGa_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index