NOTE: Please publicize any license changes to your packages
rc040203 at freenet.de
Sat Jul 21 05:27:54 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:35 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek (jakub at redhat.com) said:
> > BTW, shouldn't we start changing License: tags in packages for *GPL
> > packages, so that it include the exact version?
> > E.g. License: GPL2 (or GPL2only?) for GPL 2 without any later,
> > LGPL2.1+ (or LGPL2.1?) for LGPL 2.1 or any later, etc.
> This is currently a task for the Packaging committee to standardize.
FPC several times discussed this issue.
The result had been us voting against using versioned licenses, because
a) we consider the License-tag to be "informative" and not to be a legal
statement nor to have a legally binding effect.
b) we considered it inapplicable and to introduce too much
overhead/bureaucracy, because in general, there are too many
"un-numbered" variations of licenses around.
More information about the fedora-devel-list