Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag status - 2007/08/29

["Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa redhat com>]

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:30 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> I wrote:
> > While we still need to handle cases like this, in the particular case
> > of "(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)", isn't it rather
> > pointless?  GPLv2+ or Artistic is a subset of GPL+ or Artistic.  Why
> > is there any need to complicate the license tag like this?  It seems
> > as silly as saying GPL+ or GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.
> > 
> > I think I must be missing something peculiar and historic about the
> > Perl license
> 
> Or, I'm missing the large comment right above the License tag in the
> spec file.  D'oh!
> 
> Some of the other perl packages use this same license without any such
> comment, which makes me wonder if they have just copied the perl
> license tag or if they truly need such a license tag:
> 
> devel/perl-Jcode/perl-Jcode.spec
> devel/perl-Unicode-Map8/perl-Unicode-Map8.spec
> devel/perl-Unicode-Map/perl-Unicode-Map.spec
> devel/perl-Unicode-MapUTF8/perl-Unicode-MapUTF8.spec
> devel/perl-Unicode-String/perl-Unicode-String.spec

Almost certainly, this is not correct for these packages.

~spot