On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> No, it shouldn't be seen as plain GPL. I'd say this is a free software > license but is sufficiently more restrictive than conventional > interpretations of GPLv2 to the point of being GPL-incompatible, and > indeed the authors seem to acknowledge this. It should have a distinct > license tag. Thanks for the quick confirmation. Filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055861 Rahul
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
