License text is missing

[rapgro]

README.md mentions LGPL3 as the license. Please provide also a valid license text file. You can get it there: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt

[rapgro]

Found. Sorry for the noise. https://github.com/bentonstark/starksoft-aspen/blob/master/Starksoft.Aspen/COPYING.LESSER

[rapgro]

Although, headers in source files have GPL version 3 instead. Please be aware that GPLv3 is not the same as LGPL version 3.

[bentonstark]

Licensing file is included as recommended by GNU. LGPL is the intended licensing for the library. Language of the licensing file matches latest the current text.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt

[meebey]

So is starksoft-aspen LGPL or GPL licensed? The header say GPL while the COPYING.LESSER says LGPL. E.g. https://github.com/bentonstark/starksoft-aspen/blob/master/Starksoft.Aspen/GnuPG/Gpg.cs#L6

[bentonstark]

LGPL v3. The file header I am including says to consult the included licensing file for details. I am just following the instructions as given by the FSF on LGPL which points to a generic GPL 3 header as included in the files. It is worth noting that LGPL is an extension to the GPL allowing for additional rights to the user. That said, I can see how it is confusing since the language is not specific on the file header. So to remove anxiety I can add LGPL references to the file headers. :)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

[meebey]

Hm, you are right, with the LGPL 3 version there is no longer a header section example and they even tell you to ship GPL + LGPL text file as LGPL is additional rights to the GPL terms... With LGPL 2.1 there was a different wording for a header section example.

[meebey]

By just reading the header does not tell the exact terms or "flavor". That is problematic when the file itself is copied to some other project with another license. That is why all files of a project contain a license header in the first place, to avoid such confusion.

[rapgro]

The difference between GPL and LGPL is the scope of impact when it comes to the case of derivative works. GPL impacts derivative works -- those that are not independent or separate from the original code. LGPL excludes the category of dependent work that uses, but is not based on the original work from the license obligations. This is not simple stuff, unfortunately.

I strictly doubt that's different with versions. Please clearly identicate in the header.

[bentonstark]

Yes. That is why I choose LGPL over GPL as it allows people to link and and embed the compiled binaries without worrying about having to open source their own solution (e.g. proprietary, closed-source solutions). Since we are taking .NET here most people are not super aware of the GPL restrictions and may be afraid of it. Hence the LGPL license. I used the MIT license prior but found people were using my libraries and not giving any credit after doing so or worse selling them as a solution of their own.

[meebey]

To give an example how a license header with a concrete GPL flavor; the LGPL, with version looks like: https://github.com/meebey/SmartIrc4net/blob/master/src/IrcClient/IrcClient.cs#L15

[rapgro]

I don't understand how we can proceed. We want a package in Fedora but there are strict rules to a validation of license in a review process for official repository.

[bentonstark]

It's changed. Just be patient as I am updating a bunch of other stuff in the library including changes to the Gpg class that people have been asking for. I should have a push today.