https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eugene@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #20 from Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eugene@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #19) > 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. So, we get back to previous, right? https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qvge/qvge-0.6.2-3.spec > 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. As far as I know I cannot add license text to other sources with myself (excluding _extra_ordinary situation). Real use-case: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845322# But from other side as a) qtpropertybrowser really has no license text in separate file and b) not maintained for a long time I'm planning to include head of it's source as license text: https://github.com/qtproject/qt-solutions/blob/master/qtpropertybrowser/src/qtpropertybrowser.h As it is not real license text then this will be LICENSE.qtpropertybrowser PS. README.qsint is because it is not pure license text but is real README file. IMHO I have no right to rename README into LICENSE if upstream decide to name it as is. -- 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
