[Issue 204] GPL-related spelling fixes

https://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204






------- Additional comments from [email protected] Tue May  3 11:31:08 -0700 2005 -------
I think I agree at least partially with Ville.  A particular license or both
should be specified, but not "GNU Public License".  That doesn't exist.  I think
it would be best for posterity if we were distributing everything under both the
GNU GPL *and* the GNU LGPL, easing the process of shipping a cvslib that can be
linked into anything.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what legalities are involved in
this.  I'm a little leery of using the "try it and see what happens" approach in
regards to legal issues.  I have no idea who to ask about this, however.  Maybe
a note to the FSF would get us someone who can untangle it?  I've been wondering
if "GNU GPL or any later license" included the GNU Free Documentation License
for the manual recently anyhow.  I've sent a note to [email protected] and CC'd Mark.