On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 12:15 -0400, Michel Salim wrote: > There is no release of LGPLv2, so the short names for LGPL listed on > the Licensing page are a bit unclear. > > Would it be better to use LGPLv2.1, LGPLv2.1+ etc. as opposed to > LGPLv2 et. al.? It seems odd to refer to a non-existent license. There was an LGPLv2. It was called the "GNU Library General Public License": http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.html It has been succeeded by the GNU Lesser General Public License, which came out at v2.1, and is effectively the same with regards to rights/restrictions. For simplicity, we just use LGPLv2 to cover both the Lesser and Library versions of the LGPL. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
