On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 07:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Wart wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> Got your attention? Good. > >> > >> GPL and LGPL are NOT acceptable License tags for Fedora. You cannot > >> simply use "GPL" or "LGPL" as a license tag anymore. > >> > >> You have to use one of the following tags: > >> > >> GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+ > >> > >> GPL+: If there is no version specified anywhere, and it only says GPL, > >> then it is GPL+. It is also GPL+ if the code is licensed as "GPL version > >> 1 or later". > >> > >> GPLv2: If the code only says "version 2 of the License." and does NOT > >> say "or later version", then it is GPLv2 only. > >> > > [...] > >> > >> NOTE: Don't trust COPYING. Look at the source code itself. > > > > I've got ~40 packages to go through, so this may take a while. Any > > offers of help are appreciated. > > > > Heh, sorry I'm about to finish doing my 149th and 150th package today (after > days of working on this), and I really do _not_ feel like doing any more > license reviews. I'm happy to answer any questions though. > > > abe contains only a COPYING file that says 'Version 2', and no copyright > > or license info in the source files themselves. In the absence of > > anything in the source files, does this qualify abe for 'GPL+' or 'GPLv2'? > > > > GPL+, the version in the COPYING file is irrelevant. IANAL, but I don't think this is right at all. The author expressed in COPYING what the license is and it is v2. You can't ignore the author intentions at all. And in general if COPYING does not reflect the content that's a BUG. Upstream should be notified and asked to fix it with the correct information. Simo. -- 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
