https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
--- Comment #37 from Otto Urpelainen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Gregory PAKOSZ from comment #35) > Though it shouldn't be necessary: IANAL but WTFPL v2 is supposed to be > compatible with GPL v2 and v3. It's at least listed as such by Fedora: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses Hi Gregory, That is right, whereami's license is ok for Fedora, either of the given options would work actually. The problem I have with the licenses is not that dosbox-x could not be included in Fedora. It is just that the licenses should be listed correctly in specfile Licenses field, and the conditions for each license fulfilled. A very common case is that popular permissive licenses like MIT, BSD, APL2 all require distributing the original copyright and permissions notices with the source or compiled program. When a project bundles it dependencies like dosbox-x does, this results in requirement to include a lot of those notices. As an example, consider the Visual Studio Code notices file (from some old version, the current one is much longer): https://gist.github.com/dm/e5581d6c37b408c819ec Another example would be this Oracle HTTP Server docs page, fulfilling the license conditions of open source software they have used: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b12255/license.htm -- 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
