- Mar 18, 2008
- Reaction score
I'm not a lawyer, but the header seems to say GPL and not LGPL... I predict a nice afternoon for me... :facepalm:
As for the link, I can't fix that... I think (of the people still around) that only Urwumpe as "full access" to SF.
One question I had for some time: should that header be in all source and header files, or its "enough" to have it only in the header files?
I don't think it is necessary to hurry here. I just mentioned it because it is obviously inconsistent and might lead to misunderstandings.
I guess it would be good to at least have all links say the same thing. Since it looks like GPL from the get-go, the SourceForge link should be changed to say so too, at least for the time you need to get all contributors to agree to change it to LGPL. If you have that agreement, I'd suggest to first remove the headers, then change the doc entries to LGPL, then gradually add the headers again with updated license. I don't think there is a common formalism on whether or not there needs to be a header in all sources. Well, besides from FSF, maybe.
As I see it, nobody really has a problem with it, though. It is just confusing a bit.