Odd licenses

[Andrew Overholt]

* Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us> [2007-02-09 14:47]:
> 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. 

I don't want to wait that long.  Didn't Spot and others do a review a
few months ago?  Was this issue looked at then?

Thanks,

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070209/cf1844b6/attachment.sig>