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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Nov 28 15:48:10 UTC 2006

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:20:39AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "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.

OK, I thought the list of the 8 licenses beneath the "plan" heading
was already what you were suggesting as a set, sorry for the noise. :)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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-packaging/attachments/20061128/4c4ad31d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list