https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045924 --- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1857573 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1857573&action=edit licensecheck.txt License check detected quite a lot different licenses uses. Some are just few headers, like Apache 2.0 license. But MIT covers rtp part of quite a lot of files. I think all used licenses have to be noted in License: tag if they are used to build binary outputs. It should be noted in spec which parts are covered by which license. Current GPLv3 license it not clearly enough, I am confident at least some of other licenses are used to produce binaries. It should be described which files are covered by which license. Details are in licensing guidelines [1]. 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045924 _______________________________________________ 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
