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
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
-- Thomas Jones
Attachment:
pgpJoMzFPpYRZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
