--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #5)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> LGTM, package approved.
Thanks!
> > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> > > - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA
> >
> > <
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> says that CC-BY-SA is
> > shorthand for CC-BY-SA-3.0. I'd like it doubly confirmed if CC-BY-SA can
be
> > shorthand for _both_, though that would be rather not-very-ideal.
>
> From Tom answer to your mail:
>
> The 4.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses are as good as the 3.0
> versions. I have updated the links to the CC licenses to point to the
> 4.0 revision, no change in License tag in package spec files is required.
Should I update the licence to point to `CC-BY-SA` instead of `CC-BY-SA-4.0`
now?
Yes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component