On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:31:07AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
And they have an official position on the javierwilson/tonto case,
where the GPL-3.0 text is in LICENSE, but no other file in the
repository contains copyright or licensing information. From the
Fedora wiki:
Full Name: GNU General Public License (no version)
Short Name: GPL+
FSF Free? Yes
GPLv2 Compat? Yes
GPLv3 Compat? Yes
Notes (stuffed into the “Upstream URL” column):
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 their position is that the presence of a particular version of the
text in the COPYING (or presumably LICENSE, etc.) does not count as
the program specifying a version of the license [2].
Cheers,
Trevor
[1]:
https://github.com/javierwilson/tonto/tree/75be0678be565872cbe7b99d5af4a1946393ee77
[2]:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/4aac6f8459901a6061c243cbfa3970afb39e3879/src/GPL-1.0.xml#L169-L170
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
