Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

(been having problems with the novell smtp server sending mail, so
apologies if this goes out twice).

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
> > "or later" clause.
> 
> For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
> and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
> LGPL v3 or with the "or later" clause.
> 
> The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
> would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
> Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
> 
> Which is something to avoid, I think.

This is exactly why we want it to be LGPLv2 (pretty confidant that Camel
- if not all of EDS - is supposed to be LGPLv2 and not GPLv2 - it's one
of the reasons Werner Koch was considering relicensing GPGME to be LGPL
instead of GPL at one point, forget if he actually made the change or
not) and not (L)GPLv3 because software licensed under v3 of the license
can use v2 libs w/o any issues, but v2 cannot use v3.

There shouldn't be a need to dual license LGPLv2 & LGPLv3, it should be
plenty to simply keep the LGPLv2 license that Camel is already under.

Jeff