On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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. Actually, I've changed my mind. This is a bit unnecessary for a documentation license, where we're not so worried about interoperability. If it becomes a problem, we can always introduce this versioning scheme later. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
