On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:34:00PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 19:24 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 01:13 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > > On Friday 27 July 2007 01:27:59 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > > > > > and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . > > > > > > Why are no "(L)GPLv3" columns and "(L)GPLv3 or later" rows in the GPL > > > Compatibility Matrix? > > > > Because the FSF makes no distinction. I don't think there would be any > > difference, since there is not currently a "later". > > > If this is true, I have a slightly cosmetic comment: > > GPL and LGPL get an "or later" clause while other licenses would have to > jump through the dual license hoops to achieve the same thing. Perhaps > it would be better to define an "operator" to mean or later? > > (And I nominate "+=" as the most logical and ugliest operator for the > job :-) A comparison operator (>=) would make more sense -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpgfqXOEKXk4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
