Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost> 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 "superceded" is not the same as "is textually and therefore legally the 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: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/old-licenses.html#LGPL > > 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 "www.gnu.org" 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.
Description: PGP signature