On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:37:49PM +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:36:17AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>      On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 06:56:58PM +0200, John Darrington wrote:
>      > +    (license gpl2+)))
>      
>      My interpretation of the first paragraph of COPYING [0] is that the
>      package is licensed under the GPL version 2 only. What do you think?
> 
> All the .c files in the package explicitly say "either version 2 of the License,
>  or (at your option) any later version".

Okay, I guess the statement in COPYING [0] can be interpreted to not
exclude distribution under later versions. It merely confirms that you
can distribute under version 2.

[0]
All files included in microcom are distributable under the "GNU GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE version 2". (Some might have the "or any later version"
phrase; this doesn't affect the previous statement though.) If the file
doesn't specify a license explicitly, assume "version 2 only". The "GNU
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE version 2" is appended below.