On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 12:15 -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
There is no release of LGPLv2, so the short names for LGPL listed on
the Licensing page are a bit unclear.
Would it be better to use LGPLv2.1, LGPLv2.1+ etc. as opposed to
LGPLv2 et. al.? It seems odd to refer to a non-existent license.
There was an LGPLv2. It was called the "GNU Library General Public
It has been succeeded by the GNU Lesser General Public License, which
came out at v2.1, and is effectively the same with regards to
For simplicity, we just use LGPLv2 to cover both the Lesser and Library
versions of the LGPL.