https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com) | |needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> --- It makes sense that licenses on the Good list are fine, since they would be in packages already. But there are licenses that are not on that list. For example, AFL 3.0 is Good, but there is also AFL 1.1 and AFL 2.0, and they have different distribution rights (or at least they're written a bit differently). And then there's stuff like Artistic 1.0, which is Bad, but is the text of the license okay? I suggest asking legal@. -- 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
