#3 License statement may be confusing - LGPL2 or LGPL2+

[Mathias Gug]

Hi,

The license statement is:

# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
# License.

The use of "either" with no "or" is odd. Is the license LGPL2 or LGPL2+?

If the latter the statement above should instead be:

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

[Andreas Maier]

As I see it, there are two issues around licensing in the pywbem subproject (I did not check the others):

1. The issue described by the bug creator. I agree with the proposed solution (it is the same text that is already in testsuite/comfychair.py.

2. The sourceforge project page says GPL2, not LGPL2. That needs to be fixed as well to say LGPL2.

Please speak up if you have any concerns with these solutions.

[Andreas Maier]

After double checking with the original pywbem authors, I have made these changes:

• Changed the license statement on the sourceforge project page to say LGPL2 (instead of GPL2; The sourceforge list of licenses one can choose does not differentiate between LGPL 2 and 2.1).

• Changed the file headers of those files that were in the pywbem subtree of the overall project, and were authored by the original pywbem authors, to say LGPL 2.1 or higher (instead of LGPL 2). This change has been committed as r678.

[Andreas Maier]

Just updating the bug status. The changes described had already been committed and activated on the web page, earlier.