https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> --- Thanks for the response. (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #3) > That's only a recommendation of the FSF for GPL. It's not required to > annotate all source files, and just take a look at the instructions on the > sidebar for choose a license, for example: > https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/ > tldr legal: https://tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license "You must include the > license notice in all copies or substantial uses of the work." > or this SE answer: > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/how-to-apply-mit-license- > in-the-github-repo-for-fully-free-project "No, a license header is not > necessary, at least for MIT and the Unlicense. Some other licenses encourage > you to add such a header but that is not the case of these two." None of the above is what I'm talking about, or relevant at all. What is missing here is any indication by whoever owns the copyright that the LICENSE file that is shipped applies to the source files in the tarball. >> Please ask upstream to clarify this, preferrably by including a comment in the source files about how are they licensed. If this was unclear, please let me rephrase this: Upstream needs to clarify this somehow, because it's not clear at the moment. The best way to do this is to add a comment in the actual source files. If there's any reason upstream has to object this, they could do something else, such as adding a statement in the README file. There's might be a chance that "this software" in the MIT license text could be understood as referring to whatever is in the same directory or tarball, but I don't know whether that's universally understood and would prefer a clarification to guessing. I'm adding a FE-LEGAL blocker, to give the legal a chance to chime in about this, but I believe it would be much easier if you just asked upstream to clear up how is the software licensed. Also, one more nit here: 2.) Please add BuildRequires: go-rpm-macros You're using the macros from the package. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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://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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
