https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 --- Comment #19 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> --- The licensing issues I still have: 1. It really should be "MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD", without splitting it with parenthesis. The crucial question is: What license(s) apply to binary qvgeapp? The answer is, all of them, so the triplet a unit. But since the License field is a rabbit hole when bundled dependecies are present (e.g. we could start discussing the auxiliary files apart from the binary…), so I will just suggest you go with my suggestion, but not demand any changes at this point, close enough I say. 2. qtpropertybrowser's license file is still missing. So either add LICENSE.qtpropertybrowser as well (need to work with upstream here, because the do not have anything suitable, README.qsint is close, but is ruined by its header above the license proper), or change the naming scheme to LICENCE.LGPLv3, etc. -- 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
