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

Re: yi

Quoting Marcel Fourné (2015-05-29 11:00:47)
> Am Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:58 +0100 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
>> I guess LGPL is not a license, but a *set* of licenses.
>> Maybe you mean something like LGPL-2.1+ or whatever is appropriate 
>> there (look for the "later" word, licensecheck might help too)
> Thanks, that brought me to the point: I was referencing LGPL-2.1 under 
> common-licenses, but stated LGPL without version as the license. 
> Lintian got rightfully confused by that. ;-)

The proper License shortname when copyright holder states "[…] either
 version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." is 
not "LGPL" nor "LGPL-2.1" but "LGPL-2.1+" - more on License shortnames 
at http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ .

The actual License you then should reference in the License paragraph is 
/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1 - without trailing plus: The license 
itself is not "...or newer", only the license _grant_ issued by the 
copyright holder.

Hope that helps,

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: