On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:51 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:33 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > > I presume, though it's not explicitly stated, that GPL+ can also be used > > > where the license is explicitly given as "GPL version 1 or later" (e.g. > > > for perl and all same-as-perl licensed modules)? > > > > Yes, this correct. > > > > > Similarly, I take LGPL+ to be suitable for packages licensed as "LGPL v2 > > > (not 2.1) or later" as well as for LGPL of unspecified version? > > > > Not quite: > > > > LGPL+ is only for unversioned LGPL (I've never seen this, but it's > > possible). > > LGPLv2+ is for LGPL 2/2.1 or later. > > > > Can you explain the difference, considering there is no version 1 of the > LGPL ? Eh, I suppose there is no difference. I'll nuke LGPL+ off the list. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
