On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 02:46 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > Yeah, GFDL+ should be ok. > > What about the different license versions? > > GDFL+ > GDFLv1.1 > GDFLv1.1+ > GDFLv1.2 > GDFLv1.2+ > > AFAIK, the first version was 1.1. So following what's done with LGPL, > both GDFL and GDFL+ could be removed. It would all be easier if the > short license tag was just GDFL, but if the license is versioned, it > could make a difference in the future[*], so it seems like it'd be > best to use the version numbers from the start. > > Of course, I'd be very glad to hear that we don't need to be that > pedantic. > > [*] if that weren't true, we'd still be happily using GPL as the > license tag, right? :) We're only not using GPL as the license tag because the version matters for its interoperability between other licenses (including older versions of the GPL). But you're right. It's better to be safe than sorry here. I'll update the table. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
