Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: >> Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: >> >>> From 57265b8363add56ea0ea2f35310c39db7e2b14ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> >>> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:46:44 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add NTK. >>> >>> * gnu/packages/fltk.scm (ntk): New variable. >> >> [...] >> >>> + (license lgpl2.0))) >> >> Version 2.0-only? > > I copied this from “fltk” because it’s a fork and the author wrote that > the license is the same as for “fltk”. Now looking at the copyright > headers I see the “or later” clause repeatedly. Does this mean that the > license for our “fltk” package is incorrect? Should it not also be > “lgpl2.0+” then?
If one or more files lack the “or later” clause, then that’s v2.0-only. Otherwise there’s indeed a mistake. Thanks for checking, Ludo’.
