On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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").
Did some digging upstream to determine that the "BSD" license in
question was actually ISC (which is compatible) and cleaned everything
up in r52879.
>> 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.
I figured there was something like that, but I didn't know what.
Thanks for the info.
Evan
