Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
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.
Imo,
License: LPGLv2 with exceptions
is perfectly descriptive and valid. Folks will have to look at the
license file for details anyway. For example, see also qt4 packaging
that uses something similar.
-- Rex
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
