Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > - Same as Bill, I prefer the "GPLv2+" style notations. > > Yeah, this makes sense to me, I'm going to change it when I get to work > today. One more change to the license table - a GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. So that would be GPL+, or GPLv1+. > > # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD > > License: GPLv2+ and BSD > > It seems fine to me. I think I'm going to redraft the wording for that > section to simply say that "the package must contain a comment > explaining the multiple licensing breakdown", and leave the actual > implementation to the packager. This way, one could do as you've > suggested, or as I originally drafted, or even say > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING Sounds reasonable. Thanks for your work on this! Bill -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
