Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of
> source files though. For any package review, the header of every source
> file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the
> exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the
> top level LICENSE file. If there's no header present, then it is
> implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for
> the purposes of Fedora license tag.
I wish you good luck opening every single of the 167383 files in QtWebEngine
(checked with 5.15.8, but that is the order of magnitude for all versions)
to check the license header, if there is any to begin with. (Some of the
bundled libraries are of the "let's just drop in one license file that
applies to everything" kind, and it is named differently in each.)
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
