It's a simple addition, but I'm wondering if it is redundant with the
URL.  i.e. while there is a general URL for the LGPL license, there is
a specific URL for the 3.0 license:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt

It seems that the versioned URL should be preferred whenever possible.

A REP on license strings would be a great contribution.  If you're
curious, I've included a list of known license strings according to
rosdoc.

 - Ken

http://www.ros.org/doc/api/licenses.html

???
Apache 2.0
Apache License 2.0
Apache License 2.0/BSD
Apache License, Version 2.0
Apache License, Version 2.0 (contaminated)
BSD
BSD (learning) and Boost/research-only (inference
BSD (new)
BSD (non-commercial use)
BSD, Boost
BSD, Boost Software License (Poco)
BSD, Creative Commons
BSD, GPL, LGPL
BSD, LGPL
BSD, LGPL, GPL for sigblock
BSD, NOSA
BSD, Python License
BSD, based on vicon_mocap from the starmac stacks
BSD, except for source files individually marked otherwise
BSD, APACHE 2.0
BSD, GPL
BSD-style
BSD/GPL
Boost Software LicenseVersion 1.0
CC BY-NC-SA 2.5
CeCILL-B (BSD-like)
CeCiLL
Closed source
Commercial
Creative Commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)
Creative Commons 3.0 by
Creative Commons Attribution
Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
CreativeCommons BY-NC-SA License1
CreativeCommons-by-nc-sa-2.0
Enea Scioni
GNU
GNU LGPL 2.1
GPL26
GPL + runtime exception
GPL because of list.h; other files released under BSD
GPL v2
GPL v2 or later
GPL v2 with linking exception
GPL+linking exception
GPL+runtime exception
GPLv2+
GPLv3
GPLv3+
LGPL
LGPL (contaminated)
LGPL - BSD
LGPL v2
LGPL v2.1 or later
LGPL,BSD
LGPL,Boost Software License
LGPL/BSD
LGPLv2.1 / BSD
LGPLv3
Lesser GPL and Apache License, Version 2.0
MIT
MIT License, refer to dom.txt in the "others" folder.
Many
Mozilla Public License Version 1.1
No Clue
Proprietary
Public Domain
Public domain
QPL
The Apache License 2.0
Unknown1
Various
WhoCares
ZLib
babel
binary only
cffi
free for non-commercial use
proprietary
trivial-features
unknown
wxWindows




On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Bill Morris <morris@ee.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
> This probably isn't a priority for anyone but, I'd like to propose that
> the license tag have a version attribute
> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Manifest/XML#A.3Clicense.3E_tag
>
> <license url="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html"
> version="3.0">LGPL</<license>
>
> It may also be worth including in a REP somewhere examples of common
> values so we don't end up with every possible permutation of "lesser
> GPL", "lgpl", "LGPL", "LGPLv3", etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>