Re: Rygel/GUPnP licensing

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

Hi;

On 27 October 2015 at 11:19, Jens Georg <mail jensge org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having dug through the variants of (L)GPL license texts lately, I noticed
> that we apparenly have put Rygel and GUPnP under a weird mixure of LGPL v2
> versions. The text and version comes from the "old" Library GPL 2, but as a
> license name we use "Lesser GPL" in the headers but Library GPL in the
> COPYING file.

Copying and pasting licensing blurbs in the source code strikes again.

Library GPL v2.0 and Lesser GPL v2.1 are the exact same license — with
a pass of s/Library/Lesser/ and the version bumped to 2.1.

> Does anyone know whether I can just do a "soft" relicensing to "proper"
> LGPLv2.1+ by myself (the license says version 2 or later) to clean this up
> or whether I need to involve all contributing parties (oh dear)?

You can safely replace the COPYING file and the licensing blurb to
read Lesser GPL v2.1. Library GPL v2 is compatible with Lesser GPL
v2.1, and bumping up from v2+ to v2.1+ is covered under the "or later"
provision.

<rant>
We should go through all of our code base to clean up this mess;
especially the licensing blurbs that read "Lesser GPL v2 or later",
because that license *does not exist*. It's either "Library GPL v2" or
"Lesser GPL v2.1".
</rant>

Ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
https://www.bassi.io
[ ] ebassi [ gmail com]