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

[Todd Zullinger]

I 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

Or, I'm missing the large comment right above the License tag in the
spec file.  D'oh!

Some of the other perl packages use this same license without any such
comment, which makes me wonder if they have just copied the perl
license tag or if they truly need such a license tag:

devel/perl-Jcode/perl-Jcode.spec
devel/perl-Unicode-Map8/perl-Unicode-Map8.spec
devel/perl-Unicode-Map/perl-Unicode-Map.spec
devel/perl-Unicode-MapUTF8/perl-Unicode-MapUTF8.spec
devel/perl-Unicode-String/perl-Unicode-String.spec

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
    -- Thomas Jones

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/attachments/20070829/8b83af3d/attachment.sig>