[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag status - 2007/08/29



On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:23 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:

> While we still need to handle cases like this, in the particular case
> of "(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)", isn't it rather
> pointless?  GPLv2+ or Artistic is a subset of GPL+ or Artistic.  Why
> is there any need to complicate the license tag like this?  It seems
> as silly as saying GPL+ or GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.
> 
> I think I must be missing something peculiar and historic about the
> Perl license

The Fedora perl package is derived from the upstream perl tarball. That
tarball is a "meta" tarball, containing not just base perl, but also
some perl modules which perl upstream has deemed for various reasons
(good, bad, otherwise) to be included as well. One of these addon
modules is explicitly licensed as GPLv2+ or Artistic. The rest of the
modules (and base perl) are GPL+ or Artistic. Thus, the unique
licensing.

~spot



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]