Jason Tibbitts who has been kindly reviewing many of my packages raises a question about the License field for a common license for OCaml. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432482 The license starts with this preamble, and then continues with the ordinary LGPLv2. Note that this license is more permissive than the standard LGPL, so this is not a question about whether this is free software or not. <quote> This Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (included below). As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library" with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General Public License. By "a publicly distributed version of the Library", we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a modified version of the Library that is distributed under the conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General Public License. </quote> Many OCaml libraries use a license like this because the relinking requirements described in LGPL make no sense for OCaml libraries. Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
