On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:20:55PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> I was just wondering why checklicenses.py does not permit any "GPL2"
> licenses, the only GPL-related ones on the list are GPL2+.
This may turn out to be an oversight of the original authors.
Have you asked them to change the license?
"BSD license" is also vague. *Which* BSD license? Our COPYING file
contains several (and none of them uses the term "BSD license").
> If there's a reason we require 2+ and not just 2 then we will have to
> add exceptions for epan/dissectors/packet-ieee80211-radiotap-iter.[ch]
> which are dual-licensed under GPL2 and BSD, but not under GPL2+.
> Otherwise we can just add GPL2 to the list of valid licenses.
I don't consider GPLv2(non-plus) to be a compatible license as it will
prevent whoever wants to link against a LGPv3 library to redistribute
the resulting binaries.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.