https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161518 --- Comment #40 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #36) > Thanks Fabio. The macros really make that job easier. Do you think that they > should be mentioned somewhere in the docs? The implementation of these macros is pretty new, it was only added with the most recent version of rust2rpm (i.e. v23). I wanted to wait for a bit of real-world usage to iron out any kinks before documenting them (and their limitations), but at this point I think they're OK. I'll put documenting them in the Rust Packaging Guidelines on my TODO list. > Hence, I believe the License tag MUST be: > License: MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Apache-2.0 According to my understanding of the new Legal Guidelines, yes. It doesn't make a ton of sense to list them like that (because, as you pointed out, any combination of these will just result in "MIT AND Apache-2.0"), but IANAL. -- 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=2161518 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
