On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>
> There were some license combinations (could be AND, OR, or WITH) that
> are on the "good" list but a different combination might need separate
> approval.
>
> Off top of head, I think any L/GPL WITH [exception] would fall into the
>
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 18:35, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 03. 01. 22 19:16, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Testing rpm-specs/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api.spec
> > No terminal defined for 'E' at line 1 col 2
> >
> > EPL and BSD
> >
> > What is the problem with this one ?
>
> There is no EPL in
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 12:12:38PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
The License tag was never formally defined. If we agree that there can be
anything, then let it be.
The Pending PR here updates that to: SPDX License identifier or
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 11:20 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I am processing results of license-validate audit, but it takes longer...
>
> So I am providing raw results of what I have. If you are maintainer one of
> these packages you may expect either BZ report or Pagure PR for your
> package in
On 03. 01. 22 19:16, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Testing rpm-specs/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api.spec
No terminal defined for 'E' at line 1 col 2
EPL and BSD
What is the problem with this one ?
There is no EPL in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
-- just EPL-1.0 and EPL-2.0.
On Sat, 2022-01-01 at 11:11 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I am processing results of license-validate audit, but it takes
> longer...
> So I am providing raw results of what I have. If you are maintainer one
> of these packages you may expect either BZ report or Pagure PR for your
> package in
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The License tag was never formally defined. If we agree that there can be
> anything, then let it be.
The Pending PR here updates that to: SPDX License identifier or expression
(from our "Good" list).
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 02. 01. 22 v 17:19 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
>
> Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
> No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
>
> GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
>^
>
>
Dne 02. 01. 22 v 17:19 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
^
Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}
The license does appear to be accurate in the sense that it reflects
the somewhat unusual
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:11:47AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> ipxe.spec
...
> Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
> No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
>
> GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
>^
>
> Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}
The license does appear to be accurate in the sense
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> rust-ambient-authority.spec
> rust-base100.spec
> rust-cap-primitives.spec
> rust-cap-rand.spec
> rust-cap-std.spec
> rust-cranelift-bforest.spec
> rust-cranelift-codegen-meta.spec
> rust-cranelift-codegen-shared.spec
>
I am processing results of license-validate audit, but it takes longer...
So I am providing raw results of what I have. If you are maintainer one of these packages you may expect either BZ
report or Pagure PR for your package in upcoming days/weeks.
In the attachment you will find more
12 matches
Mail list logo
