https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #30 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #28) > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #23) > > $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq > > Apache GPL (v2) > > Apache (v2.0) > > Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > > BSD (2 clause) > > BSD (3 clause) > > BSD (3 clause) GENERATED FILE > > BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2) > > BSD (4 clause) > > CC0 GPL (v2) > > CDDL > > Freetype > > Freetype GENERATED FILE > > GENERATED FILE > > GPL (v2) > > GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > > GPL (v2 or later) > > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) > > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE > > ISC > > ISC MIT (old) > > LGPL (v2.1 or later) > > MIT (CMU, retain warranty disclaimer) > > MIT (old) > > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > MIT/X11 (BSD like) GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GPL > > *No copyright* CC0 > > *No copyright* GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* GPL > > *No copyright* GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > *No copyright* NTP > > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* UNKNOWN > > NTP > > NTP (legal disclaimer) > > Public domain GPL (v2) > > UNKNOWN > > zlib/libpng > > zlib/libpng MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > > > All licenses should be accounted for except NTP. See comment 21. > > This was the state for lder JDK8 and jdk7 before. Gnu_andrew changed those > to current state in rhel, and his arguemntatnion on that is pretty good. Well, this is JDK 11, not JDK 8 or 7 :) No more Java EE and corba in JDK 11: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/320, harfbuzz has been added: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/258, freetype sources have been added (yet, we don't build them). > Area you sure you wont blindly add all from those list? No, not blindly. This was in reference to the suggested patch in comment 21 (which should be added once we have NTP clarification). I.e. the current license list as specified by "License" in the spec accounts for all of the above except for NTP. Hence, my email to the legal list for clarification. A reviewer is supposed to check licenses in sources. I've run licensecheck on them and this came of it. Then I've manually verified suspicious items. Does that clear things up? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/ILJ3Z6JEZ2ZSKK6VQYHIOQBTNBCUUZJ6/
