https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4028
--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser <rosser....@gmail.com> ---
Don't forget to add a bundled provides on python-oyoyo, too, even though it is
not packaged in Fedora. Otherwise the package looks good now, but...
> Regarding the license, please remember the license tag is not a list of
> licenses found in the source archive but it refers to the licenses of the
> contents of the *binary RPM*:
While that's true, the reason I commented is because the package isn't
compiling GPL and MIT sources into a single binary, it's installing the
separate, MIT licensed Python *source* files into /usr/share.
> $ rpmls ./fs-uae-launcher-2.8.3-2.fc28.noarch.rpm
> ...
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fs-uae-launcher/oyoyo/client.py
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fs-uae-launcher/oyoyo/cmdhandler.py
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fs-uae-launcher/oyoyo/helpers.py
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fs-uae-launcher/oyoyo/ircevents.py
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fs-uae-launcher/oyoyo/parse.py
And the guidelines have this to say about that:
> If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and
> independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a
> separator.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
That being said, I'm personally inclined to agree with you that, since the
licenses are compatible, it's not necessary to include both here. So I'm
inclined to let this slide.
> Yes, it is necessary.
I see! That makes sense; I was unaware of this. (I forgot about the Python
guideline appendix...).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
