Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) said:
> - Same as Bill, I prefer the "GPLv2+" style
notations.
Yeah, this makes sense to me, I'm going to change it when I get to work
today.
One more change to the license table - a GPL or LGPL licensed package that
lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source
code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any*
version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file
they include. So that would be GPL+, or GPLv1+.
> # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD
> License: GPLv2+ and BSD
It seems fine to me. I think I'm going to redraft the wording for that
section to simply say that "the package must contain a comment
explaining the multiple licensing breakdown", and leave the actual
implementation to the packager. This way, one could do as you've
suggested, or as I originally drafted, or even say
# For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING
Sounds reasonable.
Thanks for your work on this!
Bill