https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045924
--- Comment #12 from Petr Menšík <[email protected]> --- Thanks for hidapi unbundling, it seems nice. Description is much better, thank you for that. I had trouble understanding what it describes, but I think that is correct. If I do not understand the description, I would not need the package quite likely. I think you can merge GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ licenses. LGPLv2+ is a bit different. But I do not think it is okay to omit ASL 2.0 and BSD and WTFPL and Boost and MIT. It is good they are compatible, but they are not very similar. I think all of them have to be mentioned in License: tag. I doubt many people analyze them in detail anyway, but it belongs there. I am afraid you would still have to describe which files are covered by which license and notice all used in build. I think that is last remaining step in the review. Otherwise it is fine. I think this is the mixed source scenario [1]. I would use Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz It is shorter and reusable for (almost) any github project. 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_mixed_source_licensing_scenario -- 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 -- [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
