[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug-inetutils] Re: route
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
[bug-inetutils] Re: route |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:13 -0400 |
LGPL2.1 is compatible with GPL version 3 and later.
So if a library is released under LGPL 2.1, it can be used
in inetutils.
But isn't there a difference between something licensed under
LGPLv2.1-only and LGPLv2.1-or-later?
There is some difference, but it isn't a crucial difference.
We don't want dependencies on
packages licensed under anything-only in GNU, do we?
That's not an issue for abstract blanket principles, that's
an issue for license compatibility. The issue does not arise
with LGPL2.1.
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, (continued)
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/29
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/30
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Karl Berry, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/26
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/26
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/26
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/09/28
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/28