Re: Specifying particular GPL versions in license tag

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

 



On Tuesday 07 March 2006 23:44, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I'm reviewing a couple of packages that specify

  Hi Jason,

> License: GPL version 2 or later
>
> which rpmlint complains about.  "GPL version 2 or later" is directly
> from the package source.
>
> I suspect that all but a handful of the packages in Core and Extras
> say "GPL" when they include GPLv2 and allow any later version.  So
> should this package just do the same?  Or is such specificity allowed?
>
> It won't be long before we start seeing GPLv3 packages and, as a side
> effect, GPLv2only packages.  How will these be specified?

  I have asked the same question yesterday in the packagers mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-March/thread.html

  I am sorry, I thought that you were on that list as well, or else I would 
have CC'ed those messages.

  As discussed in that thread I will apply those changes to the R modules that 
I have submitted. The consensus was that we shoult stick to GPL and ship the 
DESCRIPTION file in %doc.

  I have also updated cran2rpmspec to cope with this rules.
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec

  The old version it is still there:
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec-1.0

  BTW, thank you for reviewing them. :-)

>  - J<

-- 
José Abílio

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Backpacking]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux