https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045924 --- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #4) > Created attachment 1857573 [details] > 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 Actually I can see (hopefully I haven't overseen anything :): GPLv2+ GPLv3+ LGPLv2+ ASL 2.0 BSD WTFPL Boost MIT IMHO all are GPL compatible thus the resulting work can be released under the effective license GPLv3+. In Fedora in the License tag you can either use the effective license or in case you cannot evaluate it, you can list all licenses to be safe. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. 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
