On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:30 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > 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 Almost certainly, this is not correct for these packages. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
