-
1. The GNU website explains that upgrading from LGPLv2.1 -> LGPLv3 is possible as long as the older license notices are replaced entirely with the new license notices that LGPLv3 itself has which incl…
-
Ideally via GitHub as described in the docs [adding a license to a repository][1].
Please also reconsider the license choice - BSD is misleading as the wrapper-header still needs GMP and that is du…
-
ewftools-x64.zip is distributing libewf LGPL licensed code without adhering to LGPLv3, it is possibly also violating the zlib and bzip2 licenses
-
Hello, I've recently noticed that the DJI SDK includes the [`com.vividsolutions:jts:1.8`](https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.vividsolutions/jts/1.8) library, which is licensed under the [LGPLv3](h…
-
I was thinking about switching to GPL-3.0-or-later or at least to LGPL-3.0-or-later. Do you think it would be good?
-
Hi. I noticed that the original repository switched the license to LGPLv3 as stated in https://github.com/profmaad/librabbitmq-objc/commit/9c7f067c1f293e617a31d06fe8738faf8e4d6f14
Could you change th…
-
-
Hello there!
You seem to have replaced the GNU LGPLv3 with the GNU LGPLv2.1.
As the `README.md` file still explains the repository to be licensed under the LGPLv3, you are either no longer giving …
-
```
In the root directory, LICENSE lists the LGPLv3, but the individual file
blurbs are inconsistent.
hooke.svn$ grep -ri GPL . | grep -v LICENSE
./fit.py:Licensed under the GNU GPL version 2
.…
-
Dear maintainers, @brgl,
I noticed that the the libgpiod cxx bindings have been re-licensed from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+ starting from version 2.0.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/libgpiod/libgpiod…
bshm updated
10 months ago