Some licensing-related housekeeping#54
Conversation
Using LGPL-3.0-or-later instead of LGPL-3.0-only is based on the “any later version” language in the source-file headers, although in garro95#23, contributors were asked about “LGPL 3” but not about later versions.
Replace “at your opinion” with “at your option”
|
Thank you for your contribution. I should have probably used a more specific wording in the question in #23. Although, considering that the contributions were already under the terms of the LGPL-3.0-or-later before #23 and that the question was about adding the MPL, I think it's safe to assume that all the contributors are happy with the current double licensing under LGPL 3 or later or MPL 2.0 |
Thanks for reviewing this quickly! Having these details worked out makes it much easier for me to package this crate for Fedora as part of the dependency tree for uv.
That’s a good point. I agree. |
2 participants
Replace deprecated
LGPL-3.0SPDX identifier with [LGPL-3.0-or-later](https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-or-later].Using
LGPL-3.0-or-laterinstead ofLGPL-3.0-onlyis based on the “any later version” language in the source-file headers, e.g.priority-queue/src/lib.rs
Lines 5 to 9 in efe31e8
although I note that in #23, contributors were asked about “LGPL 3” but not about later versions. If you believe this should be
LGPL-3.0-only, let me know and I’ll revise the PR.Add
MPL-2.0“Exhibit A” text to source file headers, option “(a)” from #48.Fix a minor typo in license/copyright headers throughout the project, which said “at your opinion” rather than “at your option.”
Copy the standard license/copyright comment from the other files to
test-nostd/src/lib.rs.@garro95 @ijackson