https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #8) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > I think the license field should be: > > BSD and BSD with advertising and ISC and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MIT and > (MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+) This is very accurate for the source code, but I don't think we need all that to describe the license of the resulting _binary_. The license tag in the spec file is supposed to describe the combined work, the compiled binaries as shipped in the binary rpm, and this opens up a way to considerably simplify the license tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F explains how to deal with multiple licensing scenario and how to figure out what is the "effective" license of the combined work. I believe we should be able to just state that: License: LGPLv2 Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way? > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must > be documented in the spec. > > The guidelines say that you need to do this, but that does not look fun > or reasonable. Maybe just a comment to say "it's complicated" would be > OK? If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't think we need to do this. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > webkitgtk4-devel. It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I missing something? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review