Hi and thanks for pointing out. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 01:15:06AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: ... > > This should have been "In copyright" file describing license term in the > > package, you (Mr. Li) have:" > > > > > > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public > > > > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > > > > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1. > > > > > > > > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 3 of GNU Lesser General Public > > > > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > > > > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3. ... > I did read it now, but I still don't understand it. The copyright file > doesn't talk about the GPL anywhere (except in the python part about > compatibility, but that's not about versions), it only talks about LGPL > versions.
Yes. > You quoted this part of the copyright file (it's still quoted above). Yes. > Do I understand correctly that your problem is "Mr. Li talks about > GPL, but the files are licensed LGPL"? My problem was there was no need to make this statement in this copyright file. Especially out of blue reference to LGPL2.1 and LGPL3 since it is standard acronym. Hmmm... I see LGPL. Sorry... I should have said differently. > I would agree that he should not do this; I'm just saying that you seem > to have misread the file, because de doesn't talk about the GPL. > ;-) Aha, that is right. It was LGPL2.1 and 3. I should have been tired. I still think removing such excess will cut doen in confusion. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
