https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645765 --- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann <thofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #3) > Sorry for my blindness to "issues" section, was concentrating merely > on the checkboxes since my brain was learnt that there's usually a lot > of ballast coming from fedora-review (meaning it likely needs some > love to catch up the evolution): Funny, I always do it the other way around: focus on issues, post the rest for completeness' sake. > > > - The file protocol/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml is licensed with > > "NTP (legal disclaimer)". It's not on the list of good licenses. You > > should check with Fedora Legal whether this is a good license. > > Indeed it is a good license, and that's just unfortunate than > licensecheck provides a misleading verdict vs. how Fedora classifies > the license -- this is the matching text: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer > > but it contains "and sell" addition to the very first sentences, but > this matches with, e.g., > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style > > (see also [bug 1475962 comment 12]). > > Do you see any conflict here? I shall fix the wording in the spec to > this very interpretation since otherwise I am carrying this cargo cult > confusion (originating in wlroots since [bug 1529352 comment 5]), > though. OK, that makes sense. No conflict here, it just wasn't clear to me. > > And you should likely do the same with sway, since the protocol file > in question was borrowed there :-) Yes! > > > - Upstream files are not properly licensed, most files are missing > > license headers. This should at least be reported to upstream. > > Cannot find anyting to that effect in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines > Can you point out the particular part to me that asks for this, please? It's not explicitly stated in the guidelines, but if the code is not properly licensed, then it cannot be shipped in Fedora. I think it's clear enough what upstream intends, but legally it's not 100% clear. Afaik, just putting a LICENSE file in your repository doesn't license all the files with that license. Since the upstream intention is clear, this is not a blocker, but it should definitely be pointed out to them so they can fix it, which should be in their interest. > > (Again, sway is in the same boat here.) Good point, I never checked that when I started maintaining sway (I did not create the initial package). > > My TODO is to to get the slurp-grim.desktop more into shape > (especially Categories). -- 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
