Hi, On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:11:11AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I have revived the License: tag proposal, simplified to a basic > standardization of the tags used for some common licenses. I have not > attempted to pick a list of those common licenses, although I have > provided some data on what License: tags are in use. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag > > Again, I wish to remind folks that this is just a proposal. there was some talk some time ago about what "distributable" is supposed to mean, and what it implies, e.g. is the source or the binary (re)distributable? Many firmwares have been tagged as distributable. Or the arpack package in the submission queue is also distributable, but possibly not modifiable (which is a blocker, and the authors have been requested to modify the wording, but that's OT). In fact it opens up the general issue of what the tag really associates to, the source or the binary or both. Technically the main package and the source package have to share the same license text, subpackages can have different licenses (and there are real life examples having different licenses in subpackages). Also since there is a distinction of GPL<=2 and GPL3, the LGPL should also deserve its own license tag. While currently the disute about GPL2 vs GPL3 is still ringing in our ears, the differences between GPL and LGPL are bigger IMHO. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpKirlrg6DmT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
