Odd licenses

Dennis Gilmore dennis at ausil.us
Fri Feb 9 19:47:09 UTC 2007


On Friday 09 February 2007 13:43, Andrew Overholt wrote:

> >
> > Which seems to imply that the license [2] is BSD.  It does indeed look
> > quite BSD-ish to me but what should the license field have?  Is this
> > okay from a legal standpoint?  Spot?
Best bet is to ask the FSF for clarification. 

-- 
Dennis Gilmore, RHCE




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list