https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Taking for review. Two things stand out to me here. First, the licensing: > # (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause > # 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # MIT > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib > # MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0 > # Unlicense OR MIT > # Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT > License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT My understanding of the new licensing guidelines is that this is not how we are supposed to fill out the License: field. The license field is supposed to be a simple conjunction of all the sub-licenses involved and should not contain further simplifications the way you've done here. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis and the rest of the page. This should be License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND (MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0) AND (Unlicense OR MIT) AND (Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) See also recent discussion on the legal list, https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/F4MYD7U6D2ROAL3CAOHSYDL3H6TPWZOT/ Secondly, I noticed that the gstreamer plugin binary package is called 'gst-plugin-reqwest'. Existing gstreamer plugins in Fedora use the 'gstreamer1-plugin(s)-$plugin' pattern and I think it would make sense to continue with this here and call the subpackage 'gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest'. -- 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=2179161 _______________________________________________ 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
