[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 Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 02:46 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > 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? :)
> 
> We're only not using GPL as the license tag because the version matters
> for its interoperability between other licenses (including older
> versions of the GPL).
> 
> But you're right. It's better to be safe than sorry here. I'll update
> the table.

Actually, I've changed my mind. This is a bit unnecessary for a
documentation license, where we're not so worried about
interoperability. If it becomes a problem, we can always introduce this
versioning scheme later.

~spot


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