Re: Updated lsbappchk 1.1.1

[Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@samba.org>]

Thorsten Kukuk writes:
> lsbappchk has no license informations except the "GPL" entry in the
> RPM.
> lsblibchk shares some code with lsbappchk. The RPM says "GPL", but
> the package contains a file with "Artistic License".
> What is now the correct license for this packages? I think it would
> be a good idea to add a short notice to every source file, under
> which license it is.

Its an error in the spec files and I'll fix this up. It should be
under the modified Artistic license as used by the other test
suites. 

While I'm changing things it might be a good opportunity to use the
Open Group Test Suite License instead (pretty much has the same effect
as the modified Artistic licence we've been using).

Stuart do you have any objections?

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/opengroup.html

Chris
-- 
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia