Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[Judd Storrs]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  8-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
>
> | The table doesn't mention LGPLv2 at all, only "LGPLv2.1".
>
> I don't think this matters for the purpose of what can you link with
> code distributed under the terms of the LGPL.

I'm inclined to I agree with you now.

The fact that the FSF for whatever reason decided to omit LGPLv2 from
the table lead me to assume it was incompatible with GPLv3 similar to
GPLv2.

--judd