On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:36 PM Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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, The only exception I'm aware of is the KDE Free Qt exception: https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ This exception governs how the license is actually governed, rather than how it's executed, though I believe that's where the current license stanza comes from. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
