fix license in readme (remains ambiguity GPL/LGPL) #360
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Many checks failing, but probably not due to this PR since only one line in the readme file was changed. To push forward this minor PR: I see the files refer consistently to the LGPL, however often by mentioning the file COPYING (which currently contains the GPL, not the LGPL). We may want to still include the GPL (some generated files, |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The README file mentioned the licensing in a supposed "LICENSE" file. It seems it would rather be the "COPYING" or the "COPYING.LESSER" file. The latter concerns the LGPL, which is the announced licensing.
Before merging: is it necessary to keep both files, including "COPYING" which is about the GPL? If not, I would suggest to remove it (and modify the README line accordingly).