On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:20:39AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > AT> Also since there is a distinction of GPL<=2 and GPL3, the LGPL > AT> should also deserve its own license tag. > > Of course it does; is there anything that doesn't use a tag of "LGPL" > to indicate the LGPL? > > Does your statement indicate that you think something should be > changed about the draft? I haven't yet presented a list of licenses > that should receive standardized tags. OK, I thought the list of the 8 licenses beneath the "plan" heading was already what you were suggesting as a set, sorry for the noise. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZthaToHVIy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
