On Friday 09 February 2007 13:58, Andrew Overholt wrote: > * 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? Yes spot looked at all licenses in core not long ago. So its probably ok. AFAIK FSF has been very responsive to license clarification requests -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE -- 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
