On 17-10-2022 12:19, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote:
Would that imply I have to add the LGPL license text to the package
myself?
The packaging guidelines state that the desired course of action is
to contact upstream and ask them to provide the licence text.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
Thanks. I already opened an issue upstream [0]. Just wanted to be sure
regarding dual licenses.
On 17-10-2022 12:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
If the COPYRIGHT file explicitly stated the PNG files are dual licensed,
then (in the absence of any more explicit statement elsewhere in the
source tree) the COPYRIGHT file statement is considered binding, despite
the fact they forgot to ship the actual LGPL license file text. Upstream
should be encouraged to ship the license text to make this more clear
though.
Thanks. Upstream is quite responsive. I will provide a patch to include
the missing license text.
[0] https://github.com/Brewtarget/brewtarget/issues/664
-- Sandro
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
