Re: Odd licenses

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> [2007-02-09 14:47]:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 13:43, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > Which seems to imply that the license [2] is BSD.  It does indeed look
> > > quite BSD-ish to me but what should the license field have?  Is this
> > > okay from a legal standpoint?  Spot?
> Best bet is to ask the FSF for clarification. 

I don't want to wait that long.  Didn't Spot and others do a review a
few months ago?  Was this issue looked at then?

Thanks,

Andrew

Attachment: pgpj0bNSbJhT9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux