>>>>> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> writes: SJS> B) One should distinguish v1 and v2 of the GPL. The changes if I SJS> remember were rather important. I don't know of any code though SJS> under v1. I recall that the original discussion about this came to the conclusion that GPL1 and 2 shouldn't be distinguished. I'll see if I can't dig it up: [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:41:43] <abadger1999> Okay. License Tags isnext [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:09] <tibbs> List discussion seemed to lean towards this being just a superficial description of the license. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:31] <tibbs> That we shouldn't try to get too specific with the license tags. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:46] <lutter> yeah, I don't see that ever being more than an indication [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:51] <abadger1999> I tend to agree with that. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:00] <tibbs> So "GPL", not "GPLv2" and "GPLv3", etc. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:20] <tibbs> And "BSD", not "BSD with advertising". [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:21] <abadger1999> The License field shouldn't be misleading, though. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:10] <abadger1999> So if GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different enough we would want to differentiate. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:13] <tibbs> And packagers should brave the rpmlint warning rather than lying about the license just to shut it up. [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:17] <lutter> for GPL, I could go either way; if it's BSD with modifications, why not just 'BSD variation' SJS> D) I would go for a standardization as the following: SJS> Name of license, Version of license, File(s) to see details. Well, that's contrary to pretty much all of the previous discussion. How do others feel? - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
