* Dennis Gilmore <dennis ausil us> [2007-02-09 14:47]: > On Friday 09 February 2007 13:43, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > > > > > > Which seems to imply that the license [2] is BSD. It does indeed look > > > quite BSD-ish to me but what should the license field have? Is this > > > okay from a legal standpoint? Spot? > Best bet is to ask the FSF for clarification. I don't want to wait that long. Didn't Spot and others do a review a few months ago? Was this issue looked at then? Thanks, Andrew
Attachment:
pgpN7ogSBqdRu.pgp
Description: PGP signature