On 08/20/2009 02:12 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I was looking at a package which contains license text identical to: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_4 > (the review is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452321) > > The package maintainer and upstream contend this is BSD, not MIT. > Personally I think the license tag is for Fedora's use, and so there > shouldn't be any harm in just using MIT as the licensing page > indicates. Still, I figured it would be good to double-check. Upstream is wrong. Please tag it as MIT. The BSD license (as written by the Regents of the University of California) is notably different. It is occasionally confusing because occasionally, in recent years, works coming out of California Universities (thus, copyright held by the Regents of the University of California) have used the MIT license. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
