[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+ |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:03:48 +0100 (CET) |
Is GNU Arch (ie. tla-1.3.5) licensed under "GPL version 2 only" or
"GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" ? The Savannah
project page (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch) mentions "GNU
General Public License v2 or later", while the src/COPYING file in the
1.3.5 release tarball mentions "...GNU General Public License, version
2,..."
The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what the
license is of the whole package. You have to look at each file, and
not at the actual license terms to see what the actual terms are of
the package.
- [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray, 2007/11/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray, 2007/11/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Ludovic Courtès, 2007/11/12
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/11/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Thomas Lord, 2007/11/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Miles Bader, 2007/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Thomas Lord, 2007/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Miles Bader, 2007/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/16