[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
From: |
Judd Storrs |
Subject: |
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:42:05 -0400 |
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Judd Storrs <address@hidden> wrote:
> The FLTK license appears to be GPLv2 only plus some other freedoms
> that unfortunately don't seem to look GPL compatible. There's some
> recent discussion going on at debian-legal about the FLTK license.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00098.html
Sorry, I misread and mistyped slightly. The FLTK license is a modified
"LGPLv2 only" not "GPLv2 only", which doesn't really help the
compatibility of the recent releases because I don't think it can
promote to GPLv3.
Sorry for any confusion,
--judd
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, (continued)
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/07
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing,
Judd Storrs <=
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08