On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Thomas Weber wrote:
The /usr/share/doc/octplot/copyright lists the license as being GPL (and some LGPL) version 2, but all of the source files list the license as being version 2 or (at your option), any later version.Look in the fonts/ directory. I'm not sure if the URW fonts have an 'or later' addition.
Even if the URW fonts are v2-only, which isn't clear (you may want to check with ghostscript), this shouldn't affect the license of the software per se. The FSF and other licensing authorities have long held that fonts are merely data files loaded by the program, and don't make the program a derived work of the font (or vice versa). This is why GPL programs can legally use non-GPL fonts, and non-GPL programs can legally use GPL fonts.
For example, on the FSF's license list, when discussing the Arphic font license, they state, "This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GPL. Its normal use is for fonts, and in that use, the *incompatibility does not cause a problem.*" (Emphasis added.)
You should also note that, if you can't find a version number in the program's copyright statement, the default according to the GPL is: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Note also that the COPYING file listing the GPL text, which is always taken verbatim from the FSF, is not the same thing as the copyright statement (e.g. "Copyright (c) 2007 Yoyodyne, Inc.") where the program specifies (or doesn't specify) the GPL version number.
Regards, Steven G. Johnson