[Fedora-packaging] Re: Revived License: tag proposal

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Tue Nov 28 15:20:39 UTC 2006

>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> writes:

AT> Also since there is a distinction of GPL<=2 and GPL3, the LGPL
AT> should also deserve its own license tag.

Of course it does; is there anything that doesn't use a tag of "LGPL"
to indicate the LGPL?

Does your statement indicate that you think something should be
changed about the draft?  I haven't yet presented a list of licenses
that should receive standardized tags.

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list