Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959720 Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) > > This is clearly in error. Maybe contact upstream and ask them to change this? > > > This is actually correct. PulseView links to libsigrok and libsigrokdecode > which > are both GPLv3+. While the PulseView sources are GPLv2+, when it is linked > and > distributed as a binary, it becomes GPLv3+. It's what the README is saying. AFAIK this is somewhat debatable, since we're not linking statically. Even more dubious is the case where you dlopen() the library. AFAIK the Fedora convention is pretty much to mark the license field as the license that is produced by the sources in the current package, linkage is not considered here at all. But in this case the README is pretty clear about the license - even though it goes against the license boilerplates. > > You're also missing a comment for SOURCE1: what's it for, where is it from > > and has it been sent upstream? > > A desktop file is required for GUI applications: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files > > If the package doesn't already include and install its own .desktop file, you > > need to make your own. Yup, but did you send this already upstream? ** Anyway, the review is APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lPKtsasLTt&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review