[Bug 1801519] Review Request: golang-github-google-licenseclassifier - A License Classifier

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux