Closed wmww closed 4 years ago
no, is fine
+1 Although README additions are a bit misleading. GPLv2-only software may become incompatible with updated gtk-layer-shell.
Good catch. I updated the comment. Better?
Could you clarify whether you meant LGPL-3.0-only
or LGPL-3.0-or-later
? See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html. The latter is preferred: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en#VersionThreeOrLater
Also, since version 3.0, LGPL is just an appendix to GPL, so you need to include the whole GPL text too (e.g. in LICENSE_GPL.md.), see License files section on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
LGPL-3.0-or-later. (this was already made explicit in the files with this license, but should definitely be in the readme as well). #54 fixes both the issues you raised.
Relicense the project as a whole under LGPLv3, but keep all source files individually licensed under MIT. This will be convenient moving forward as I add peaces of GTK into this library. It's not essential that I do it this way, but I see no major downside (since everyone using us is also using GTK, there's no harm being on the same license).
Any objections @myfreeweb @alebastr others?
Closes #39.