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

[Todd Zullinger]

Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> Yeah, GFDL+ should be ok.

What about the different license versions?

GDFL+
GDFLv1.1
GDFLv1.1+
GDFLv1.2
GDFLv1.2+

AFAIK, the first version was 1.1.  So following what's done with LGPL,
both GDFL and GDFL+ could be removed.  It would all be easier if the
short license tag was just GDFL, but if the license is versioned, it
could make a difference in the future[*], so it seems like it'd be
best to use the version numbers from the start.

Of course, I'd be very glad to hear that we don't need to be that
pedantic.

[*] if that weren't true, we'd still be happily using GPL as the
license tag, right? :)

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and
life stands explained.
    -- Mark Twain

-------------- 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/20070830/d17b9255/attachment.sig>