https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 --- Comment #16 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for taking the review. ----- > I think the License should be "(MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD)". The licensing guidelines are not crystal clear on this, but I read them as a) no parenthesis: multiple files, each with one of the listed licenses, b) with parenthesis: one file containing parts with each of the licenses. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios, which has some examples; and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_combined_dual_and_multiple_licensing_scenario and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_mixed_source_licensing_scenario, which show some scenarios where parentheses are needed for grouping. It’s my understanding that parentheses around the entire license expression are valid but have no particular meaning, and that the distinction between the cases (a) and (b) is handled by the required comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. ----- > All these licenses require including a copy of the license when distributing the code. Great catch! I’ll just add a helpful link to the relevant Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ----- > Annoyingly, AppStream metadata also contains a field for liceses, project_license. So qvge.appdata.xml must also be updated to list the actual license that has now been determined. Does Fedora require this? Or is it adequate for the metadata to hold the “overall” upstream project license, eliding other compatible licenses for various bits of the source, as is relatively common practice outside of Fedora RPM packaging? I honestly don’t know the answer to this. ----- > There is no man page, you should get in contact with the upstream about adding such. Pull request is best, but an issue will also do as usual. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages Agreed, although I will note that this is a SHOULD rather than a MUST, and that help2man can be useful sometimes. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
