On 8/6/2018 12:08 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> As far as I know, the link is correct.
> 

The link is to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
which gets redirected to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

We could update the link to avoid the redirect.

I think "CC-LGPL" is no longer a thing. It should just be "LGPL".



>> 2. Is there a reason we use LGPL version 2.1 instead of 3? Does the
>> object collection predate version 3? Do we want to switch to version 3?
> 
> Oh yes, it predates LGPL v3.0 (29 June 2007)
> LGPL v2.1 is from August 2005
> and the site was designed at least before the 22 December 2006, even if
> there is trace of getting documented in late September 2007.
> (2006 is the date of the CC-LGPL logo for this site)
> 
> I have found pictures as old as 14 Aug 2005 (in staircase by chrisb 2.0)
> 
> The real life of the website seems to be the 28 September 2007.
> 

Interesting.

> Whatever, it would need the direct action of Chris Bartlett to change
> the license, as my power does not extend to changing the impacted files.
> (the license is in the README.html within the created zip file, that one
> I can change, but for the website it is in another page(s) to which I
> have no writing access)
> 
> Whatever, is there really a difference between 2.1 and 3.0 (excepted
> that 3.0 is adding exception to GPL 3.0, whereas LGPL 2.1 is setting the
> rights alone) ?
> 

Dunno. Just asking.


Mike

Post a reply to this message