On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:59 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:43 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:34:48 +0200 > > Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > What if the code only says "see COPYING ", is it then ok to use the > > > version information from COPYING? > > > > I do believe that counts as documentation, and since unmodified COPYING > > is basically GPL+ that would be your license. > > While this is strictly true I think the best action is to ask upstream > to resolve the issue by explicitly stating their choice in a document. > > /me imagines an angry author shouting at C violation by Fedora because > we mark something GPL+ instead of GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ Agreed. Asking upstream is the best way to resolve that case. However, we're not liable for any mistaken tagging of the License in our package, because the License: tag isn't legally binding. ~spot -- 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
