On 1/14/22 2:02 PM, Miroslav Suchý
wrote:
ha! well, lesson learned - I should have not assumed and began with this question...Dne 14. 01. 22 v 0:00 Jilayne Lovejoy napsal(a):
well, as Miroslav began this thread asking about the scenario of having a Good or Bad license (and didn't seem to indicate it was specifically the Perl example - I assumed Fedora packagers are coming across such scenarios
To put it another way, I can't think of any real-world disjunctive
dual license involving a (likely) "bad" license other than the Perl
module case (where of course it is really common). If it's so unusual,
why should the guidelines address it at all? Or if the only likely
example is the Perl one, then the guidelines should only use the Perl
(GPL/Artistic) example.
Nope. From me this was completely theoretical question. Just to make the algorithm complete.
The full scan of all spec does not found any such case.
Miroslav
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
