Matthew Miller wrote: > New guidance on “effective license” analysis > -------------------------------------------- > > Many software packages consist of code with different free and open > source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of > the package license field when the packager believed that one license > subsumed the other — for example, using just “GPL” when the source code > includes parts licensed under a BSD-style license as well. Going > forward, packagers and reviewers should not make this kind of analysis, > and rather use (for example) “GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT”. This approach > is easier for packagers to apply in a consistent way. While this may make things easier when there are just two or three licenses involved (just list them and move on), in any practical code base where there are usually dozens of small pieces of copied&pasted code under various subtly-different BSD/MIT-style licenses, this is an incredibly huge amount of bureaucracy, and IMHO just not implementable (and I am not alone thinking that, see Michael Catanzaro's reply). I do not see us adding even more stuff to: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt5-qtwebengine/blob/b22f6246a6afa4b7e212be3eedabc366938df78b/f/qt5-qtwebengine.spec#_70 Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ 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
