Am Montag, den 07.02.2011, 16:54 -0500 schrieb Tom Callaway: > On 02/07/2011 04:06 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:59:12PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > >> On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > >>> Maybe it's only > >>> practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the > >>> distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license > >>> tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license > >>> change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though. > >> > >> I think this is sensible. Handle it like this: > >> > >> # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted > >> License: GPLv2 and GPLv3 > > > > Shouldn't it be "GPLv2 or GPLv3"? It's like a (disjunctive) dual > > license. > > Yes, you're right. It is a Monday. > > # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted > License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 > > ~tom > Thanks to both of you for the quick clarification! :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
