On second thought, the above licensing text does have a typographical error; the "General Library" should be changed to "Library General" to be consistent with the suggested wording at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html and also the correct word order we use later in the licensing paragraph.
I have just checked our source code and the incorrect word order appears a lot of places which I have now fixed as of svn revision 11680.
Thanks for drawing our attention to this issue.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi,
In the Introduction at http://plplot.sourceforge.net , I see:
> PLplot is free software primarily licensed under the LGPL.
However, on browsing the Ada binding files I see that they use plain GPL, i.e. they do not include the GMGPL exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT_Modified_General_Public_License) or the GPL3 section 7 exception (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html)
Is that intentional?
This would mean that Ada applications that bind to plplot will fall under GPL?
Thanks,
Oliver
Our Ada bindings are licensed under the LGPL. To be specific, look at the wording of the license in plplot.adb which states (in part)
and similarly for other Ada bindings files. Have you found some file there that does not have the "Library" qualifier in its license?
On second thought, the above licensing text does have a typographical error; the "General Library" should be changed to "Library General" to be consistent with the suggested wording at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html and also the correct word order we use later in the licensing paragraph.
I have just checked our source code and the incorrect word order appears a lot of places which I have now fixed as of svn revision 11680.
Thanks for drawing our attention to this issue.
Thanks for looking into this matter.