On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 00:29 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 06:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:50 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > > I think the tagging per file in comments is definitely overkill. > > > > > > > > Most packages won't need it, and for those that do, it will make the > > > > task for whomever is auditing the package (re: me) much simpler. > > > > > > 73 packages that I have installed have some sort of multiple licensing. > > > > ?? 90% of all perl packages are multiple licensed. > > These alone make several 100s of packages. > > 90% of perl packages are _dual_ licensed, Yes, GPL or Artistic. > and thus, wouldn't need to do > this. I don't see this. > > Not worth mentioning KDE/Qt which typically are licensed GPL*+QPL. > > > > Also I am still missing a detailed list of all tags you want to force us > > to use for BSD*ish, X11*ish and other licenses > > These aren't licenses. Either it is BSD or X11 or it is something else. BS. Of cause they are licenses. A RH owned BSD'ish license is something completely different as a UCB owned BSD'ish license. They probably are compatible but that's all. Different copyright owners, different licensors => different licenses. This hits esp. when licensors change their licenses, as it had been several times been the case in case of the X11 licenses. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
