On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:57 PM Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm doing a review of a MinGW build of a Qt 6 package: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214 > > During the license check portion of the review, I have become > increasingly convinced that our qt5-* and qt6-* packages have > incorrect License fields. Currently they have "LGPLv2 with exceptions > or GPLv3 with exceptions". I believe that most or all of them should > have one of these two instead: > > - LGPLv3 or GPLv2+ > - LGPLv3 or GPLv2+ with exceptions > > Could one or two of you license-minded people read through the > comments on that bug and indicate whether you think the analysis is > correct or not, please? Nine days later, I've had no takers, even after sending this message to fedora-legal-list. I'll ask again. Would one or two individuals interested in seeing that our packages have correct license tags please read through my analysis and see if you agree or disagree? One of the maintainers of the Qt packages would be ideal. Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
