On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 08:59 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > 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. This specific exception is something which is OK for Fedora, please use "LGPLv2 with exceptions" as the license. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
