Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > Hi, > > On 22/07/2020 09.49, Sai Pavan Boddu wrote: > [...] >>>>>>> + * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >>>>>>> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public >>>>>>> + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either >>>>>>> + * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. >>> >>> And while you're at it: There was never a "version 2" of the Lesser GPL. >>> In version 2.0, it was still called "Library" GPL. So it is quite likely >>> that version >>> 2.1 is meant here instead. >> [Sai Pavan Boddu] I have less knowledge here. But indeed I don’t find LGPL >> 2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LicenseURLs > > You can find version 2.0 here, for example: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/old-licenses.html#LGPL > > ... but as I said, v2.0 is called "Library" GPL instead of "Lesser" GPL. > >> BTW, I still see our repository use combination of GPL and LGPL. Is there >> any general rule to follow at high level. > > As long as the license is a standard license that is compatible with the > GPLv2 or any later version, you should be fine. See the LICENSE file in > the top directory of the sources for details. > > As a general rule, I'd say either use "GPLv2 or later" (see the file > COPYING in the main directory) or "LGPLv2.1 or later" (see COPYING.LIB > in the main directory) for new code, unless you contribute to the tcg/ > folder where MIT or BSD is preferred instead.
Please use "GPLv2 or later". If you believe you have a compelling reason for using a different license (compatible with GPLv2, of course), then explain yourself in the commit message.
