Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway
wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:33 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
>> I presume, though it's not explicitly stated, that GPL+ can also be used
>> where the license is explicitly given as "GPL version 1 or later" (e.g.
>> for perl and all same-as-perl licensed modules)?
> Yes, this correct.
>
>> Similarly, I take LGPL+ to be suitable for packages licensed as "LGPL v2
>> (not 2.1) or later" as well as for LGPL of unspecified version?
> Not quite:
>
> LGPL+ is only for unversioned LGPL (I've never seen this, but it's
> possible).
> LGPLv2+ is for LGPL 2/2.1 or later.
>
Can you explain the difference, considering there is no version 1 of the
LGPL ?
Also considering that the "Full name" column of the licensing page on
the wiki specifically refers to v2.1 onwards (and not v2 onwards) for
the LGPL2 and LGPL2+ short names.
Paul.