https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045924
--- Comment #13 from Jaroslav Škarvada <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #12) > Thanks for hidapi unbundling, it seems nice. > Unbundled upstream. > 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 followed the: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F I.e. I understand it that there are two possible options: a) calculate the effective license, or b) list all licenses used in the sources I think the effective license is correct in this case (or at least I wasn't able to find anything that would dispute it) > I would use > Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > Fixed -- 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 -- [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
