[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: |
Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:55:16 -0400 |
> It is ok if libroute is under GPLv3+ and NetworkManager is under
> GPLv2+ and libnl is under LGPL2.1 only, and they are all linked
> together. There is no license conflict, because all can be used
> together under GPLv3 (or GPLv4, in the future).
Ok. Is it still fine if distributors of NetworkManager do not update
to GPLv3?
That is the question I answered above. These licenses are compatible.
But it would be a good thing to upgrade NetworkManager to GPLv3+.
Could you ask them if they are considering this?
- [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, 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 <=
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Karl Berry, 2008/09/28
- [bug-inetutils] Re: route, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/09/29
- [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