Dne 14. 04. 24 v 4:53 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from ASL 1.0 to Apache-1.0
Done
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel
Dne 12. 04. 24 v 11:22 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from AGPLv3+ to
AGPL-3.0-or-later
Done
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list
Dne 11. 04. 24 v 1:04 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from Artistic 2.0 to
Artistic-2.0
Done
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list
Dne 08. 04. 24 v 8:23 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from OSL 2.0 to OSL-2.0
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected package:
dirvish
Change from ERPL to ErlPL-1.1
Affected packages:
erlang-gen_leader
erlang-p1_pgsql
Change from
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from ASL 1.0 to Apache-1.0
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
cronolog
mod_authnz_external
ocspd
pg_auto_failover (this one is not in diff as my tooling fails on this spec)
Unless somebody stop me, I will do this change
Dne 06. 04. 24 v 10:00 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from ZPLv2.1 to ZPL-2.1
Done
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list
Dne 06. 04. 24 v 10:14 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from MPLv2.0 to MPL-2.0
Done.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel
On 12. 04. 24 11:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from AGPLv3+ to
AGPL-3.0-or-later
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
simarrange
I had a look at this package of mine and realized I borked the rpmautospec
conversion, so I
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from AGPLv3+ to
AGPL-3.0-or-later
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
conspy
fastx_toolkit
fondo
libgtextutils
libquvi-scripts
netstat-monitor
pyhoca-cli
pyhoca-gui
python-x2go
python-surt
simarrange
Unless somebody stop
Dne 05. 04. 24 v 10:49 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from EUPL 1.2 to EUPL-1.2.
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
AusweisApp2
rust-tpm2-policy
dbus-parsec
Unless somebody stop me, I will do this change directly
V Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:04:22PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> perl-Unix-Groups-FFI
> perl-Unix-Groups-FFI
You can remove perl-Unix-Groups-FFI from your list. I converted both of them.
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from Artistic 2.0 to
Artistic-2.0
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
chordpro
cleanfeed
libkdtree++
R-AnnotationDbi
perl-Data-IEEE754
mingw-ftplib
nicstat
perl-Test-Bits
perl-MaxMind-DB-Common
perl-MaxMind-DB-Reader-XS
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from ZPLv2.1 to ZPL-2.1
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
python3-zope-fixers
python-transaction
python-zc-customdoctests
python-zc-lockfile
python-zdaemon
python-zope-component
python-zope-deprecation
python-zope
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from MPLv2.0 to MPL-2.0
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
czmq
erlang-exometer_core
git-fame
golang-github-armon-consul-api
golang-github-hashicorp-cleanhttp
golang-github-hashicorp-consul-migrate
golang-github-hashicorp
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from EUPL 1.2 to EUPL-1.2.
The proposed diff is in attachment.
Affected packages:
AusweisApp2
rust-tpm2-policy
dbus-parsec
Unless somebody stop me, I will do this change directly in dist-git after a
week.
I have the tooling in place. Very
+++ rpm-specs/bitstream-vera-fonts.spec 2024-04-05 09:09:25.602039908 +0200
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
Version: 1.10
-Release: 50%{?dist}
-License: Bitstream Vera
+Release: 51%{?dist}
+License: Bitstream-Vera
URL: http://www.gnome.org/fonts/
BuildArch: noarch
@@ -88,6
Dne 28. 03. 24 v 10:59 dop. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
I also think the conversion should only be done if the full License string can
be converted. Partial conversion is confusing, and there is not much value,
since trivial conversion is, well, trivial, and whoever will eventually
he case of "MIT and BSD and
> >> Bitstream Vera and OFL". I think that converting it to " MIT and BSD and
> >> Bitstream-Vera and OFL" is probably best option. I.e. the License tag will
> >> become mixture of Callaway and SPDX. It will not make it valid SPDX formula
rting it to " MIT and BSD and
>> Bitstream-Vera and OFL" is probably best option. I.e. the License tag will
>> become mixture of Callaway and SPDX. It will not make it valid SPDX formula
>> so it will still pop up as package to be fixed, but at least some work will
>> be done.
&g
V Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:52:50PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> I have no strong opinion how to process with the case of "MIT and BSD and
> Bitstream Vera and OFL". I think that converting it to " MIT and BSD and
> Bitstream-Vera and OFL" is probably best
Dne 27. 03. 24 v 7:40 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Dne 26. 03. 24 v 6:00 odp. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
If we're going to introduce any kind of (semi-)automatic
conversion of existing license tags, I think it'd be good
to make "convert «and» and «or» to upper-case"
part of t
Dne 26. 03. 24 v 6:00 odp. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
If we're going to introduce any kind of (semi-)automatic
conversion of existing license tags, I think it'd be good
to make "convert «and» and «or» to upper-case"
part of the process.
A.FI.
[0]https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec
> I have no strong opinion how to process with the case of
> "MIT and BSD and Bitstream Vera and OFL". I think that
> converting it to " MIT and BSD and Bitstream-Vera and OFL"
> is probably best option.
I'll go on a tiny bit of a tangent here: SPDX spec says t
ot be done
automatically.
But even when there is only one know counterpart it may not be safe to automatically convert the license. That is case
of e.g., "Free Art". Although we have in our DB only one known couterpart "LAL-1.3" it is not safe to automate this
conversi
be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary ==
The fourth phase of transition from using Fedora's short names for
licenses to [https://spdx.org/licenses/ SPDX identifiers] in the
License: field of Fedora package spec files. This phase focuses on
migrating the remaining
be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary ==
The fourth phase of transition from using Fedora's short names for
licenses to [https://spdx.org/licenses/ SPDX identifiers] in the
License: field of Fedora package spec files. This phase focuses on
migrating the remaining
Beginning with version 2.1.1, the license of python-email-validator has
changed from CC0-1.0 to Unlicense.
Note that CC0-1.0 is no longer allowed for code in Fedora, but
python-email-validator was covered by the exception for pre-existing
code in Fedora.
Version 2.1.1 will be built
I corrected a perl-Image-PNG-Libpng-tests license tag from
(GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl)
to
(GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND
LicenseRef-Fedora-UltraPermissive
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
|CLOSED
Fixed In Version||perl-Software-License-0.104
||006-1.fc40
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Last Closed||2024-02-11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263591
Bug ID: 2263591
Summary: perl-Software-License-0.104006 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Software-License
Keywords
Hi all,
the pipewalker package [0] has been updated to the latest release, v1.0. [1]
This release includes a re-licensing of the code from GPL-3.0-or-later to MIT.
pipewalker is a leaf package, so this shouldn't affect anyone.
A.FI.
[0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pipewalker
[1]
Hello, all.
The license tag on perl-Net-DHCP has been corrected from:
GPL+ or Artistic
to
MIT
Regards,
Emmanuel
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
I did a reanalysis of the pl package License field. The main package
is changing from:
BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-1.0-or-later)
AND Beerware AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND (GPL-1.0-or-later OR
Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later WITH
SWI-Exception
I corrected a mistake in perl-URI-NamespaceMap License tag from:
(GPL+ or Artistic) or Public Domain
to:
(GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi all, the license tag on qmltermwidget [0] has been corrected from:
GPL2+
to
GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later
The only two consumers of this package in Fedora repos are:
- cool-retro-term
- qmlkonsole
Cheers,
A.FI.
[0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qmltermwidget
V Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 07:11:09AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> We added new license LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable that should be used for
> packages like foo-filesystem that e.g., create just directories and does not
> have copyrightable code nor content.
>
I believe all metap
The license for python-elephant has been converted to SPDX and corrected to:
BSD-3-Clause AND MIT
It used to be just 'BSD'.
Cheers,
--
Sandro
FAS: gui1ty
IRC: Penguinpee
Elsewhere: [Pp]enguinpee
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel
The license for rapidjson has been corrected from:
MIT
to:
MIT and BSD-3-Clause
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le
The License field for python-grabbit has been updated from “MIT” to “MIT
AND Unlicense” to reflect the _version.py file generated by Versioneer 0.29.
As described in
https://github.com/python-versioneer/python-versioneer#license, the
_version.py file generated by Versioneer is under the same
Hi folks,
Just an FYI. Morphio has changed its license from LGPL-3.0 to Apache-2.0
in the latest version 3.3.7:
https://github.com/BlueBrain/MorphIO/pull/467
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) |
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zo
I corrected a license tag in rwhoisd package from:
Public Domain and zlib and GPLv2+
to:
Public Domain and HSRL and GPLv2+
The License tag will be converted to SPDX format once Legal approves new
license identifiers.
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250760
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Software-License-0.104
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-MARC-Record` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests and format license to SPDX
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-MARC-Record/pull-request/1
--
___
perl-devel
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-MARC-Record` that
you are following:
``
Package tests and format license to SPDX
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-MARC-Record/pull-request/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053941
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|37 |38
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053941
--- Comment #6 from Aoife Moloney ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 37 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 37 on
2023-12-05.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250760
Bug ID: 2250760
Summary: perl-Software-License-0.104005 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Software-License
Keywords
perl-Time-Out-0.21 changed a license back from
Artistic-2.0 AND (GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl)
to
GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel
perl-Time-Out-0.20 changed a license from
GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl
to
Artistic-2.0 AND (GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl)
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:19 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 31. 10. 23 v 18:21 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>
>> How it conflicts?
>>
>> %files
>>
>> %license LICENSE
>>
>> %
Dne 31. 10. 23 v 18:21 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
How it conflicts?
%files
%license LICENSE
%files doc
%license LICENSE
should not create any conflicts. And this is recomended way to do it.
I guess the conflicts
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> How it conflicts?
>
> %files
>
> %license LICENSE
>
> %files doc
>
> %license LICENSE
>
> should not create any conflicts. And this is recomended way to do it.
>
I guess the conflicts happen when the
Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:10 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
Hi,
I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out how
to solve it. This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both
the cmake and cmake-doc packages. This creates a conflict when up trying to
update
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:10 AM Tom Stellard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out
> how
> to solve it. This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both
> the cmake and cmake-doc packages. This creat
Hi,
I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out how
to solve it. This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both
the cmake and cmake-doc packages. This creates a conflict when up trying to
update cmake while an older version of cmake-doc
Notification time stamped 2023-10-05 01:23:49 UTC
From 56e5e93b36395faf4def4bd45891ebc14bfa035c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Howarth
Date: Apr 27 2023 08:48:58 +
Subject: Use SPDX-format license tag
---
diff --git a/perl-Mail-Message.spec b/perl-Mail-Message.spec
index 9db6311
On 19. 08. 23 23:57, Maxwell G wrote:
On Sat Aug 19, 2023 at 22:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
Hi Pythonistas,
%pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
with %license when a build backend installs them into a package's
dist-info
Hello,
I have just corrected gucharmap's license from:
GPL-3.0-or-later AND GFDL-1.3-or-later AND Unicode-DFS-2015
to:
GPL-3.0-or-later AND GFDL-1.3-or-later AND Unicode-DFS-2016
The change happened upstream six months ago, but I hadn't spotted it
at the time.
Best regards,
Alexander
Notification time stamped 2023-09-15 15:07:52 UTC
From 69e1fa494a1b4d57614e71150c24363f537b131f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Josef Špaček
Date: Sep 14 2023 19:50:09 +
Subject: Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license id
---
diff --git a/perl-Crypt-IDEA.spec b/perl
Notification time stamped 2023-09-15 14:57:01 UTC
From 69e1fa494a1b4d57614e71150c24363f537b131f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Josef Špaček
Date: Sep 14 2023 19:50:09 +
Subject: Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license id
---
diff --git a/perl-Crypt-IDEA.spec b/perl
pghmcfc merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Crypt-IDEA` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license id
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-IDEA/pull-request/1
pghmcfc merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Crypt-DES` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license i
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-DES/pull-request/2
___
perl
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Crypt-IDEA` that
you are following:
``
Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license id
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-IDEA/pull-request/1
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Crypt-DES` that
you are following:
``
Update license field to new BSD-Systemics SPDX license i
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-DES/pull-request/2
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Date-Calc-XS` that
you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests; Update license to SPDX format
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Date-Calc-XS/pull-request/1
___
perl
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Date-Calc-XS`
that you are following:
``
Package tests; Update license to SPDX format
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Date-Calc-XS/pull-request/1
I corrected perl-CBOR-XS license from:
GPLv3+ and (BSD or GPLv2+)
to:
GPL-1.0-or-later AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later)
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 22:42 Sandro napsal(a):
I believe, and Miroslav will correct me if I'm wrong, the script looks at the changelog and searches for SPDX. As long
as there's a changelog entry, the package is considered migrated.
However, if the License: tag value changes, it is recommended
On 08-09-2023 16:48, Sérgio Basto wrote:
done [1] thanks , btw another question I don't need do a new build
isn't it ?
No, since there was no license change - in your case not even the
specifier changed
and if the license format changed , should we build a new release ? and
in all
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 15:55 +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto
> :
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > xdg-utils is a MI
Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto :
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > > is
> > > already a v
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > is
> > already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
>
> Something like:
>
>
On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
Something like:
- Migrated to SPDX license (noop)
will mark the package as migrated even if the License: value
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 2:39 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
Do nothing. This transition is a no-op for you.
Nope. If he does nothing I will still report it in statistics
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 8:37 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
> already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
>
Do nothing. This transition is a no-op for you.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always
Hi,
xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
Thank you
[1]
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-utils/-/blob/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
[2]
License-fedora2spdx MIT
Warning: more options
While updating tellico and converting the license to a SPDX identifier I
notice that the previous version was incomplete.
Before it was referred as GPLv2.0-only but the code refers to it as GPL-2.0-
or-later.
This change should have been done several years ago but I did not noticed.
Regards
When you are back with Fedora 38,39,40, I will register and do a contribution
payment.
Leslie Satenstein
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 01:15:14 p.m. EDT, Robert-André Mauchin
wrote:
Hello Fedoreans an others,
Lastpass-cli license will be corrected from GPL-2.0-only to:
GPL
Hello Fedoreans an others,
Lastpass-cli license will be corrected from GPL-2.0-only to:
GPL-2.0-only WITH cryptsetup-OpenSSL-exception AND OpenSSL
In the next 1.3.5 update. Which will hopefully makes the program functional
again.
Best regards,
Robert-André
After clarifying an MPL version with an upstream, I corrected a license tag
from:
(LGPL-2.1-or-later OR CPL-1.0) AND (LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR
MPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1)
to:
(LGPL-2.1-or-later OR CPL-1.0) AND (LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR
MPL-2.0)
-- Petr
signature.asc
On 8/23/23 18:34, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23. 08. 23 13:17, Sandro wrote:> This might be out of scope, but
would it also be possible to have it fail or
issue a warning if %pyproject_save_files -l marks a license, but the
packager also uses an explicit %license in %files. That would prev
On 23. 08. 23 13:17, Sandro wrote:> This might be out of scope, but would it
also be possible to have it fail or
issue a warning if %pyproject_save_files -l marks a license, but the packager
also uses an explicit %license in %files. That would prevent duplication.
Unfortunately, the macro h
On 19-08-2023 22:13, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
Hi Pythonistas,
%pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
with %license when a build backend installs them into a package's
dist-info directory and the License-File header is specified
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 4:58 PM Maxwell G wrote:
>
> On Sat Aug 19, 2023 at 22:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
> > > Hi Pythonistas,
> > >
> > > %pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
&
On Sat Aug 19, 2023 at 22:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
> > Hi Pythonistas,
> >
> > %pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
> > with %license when a build backend installs them into a packag
On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
Hi Pythonistas,
%pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
with %license when a build backend installs them into a package's
dist-info directory and the License-File header is specified in the
METADATA file. Currently, only setuptools
Hi Pythonistas,
%pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
with %license when a build backend installs them into a package's
dist-info directory and the License-File header is specified in the
METADATA file. Currently, only setuptools and hatchling meet this
criteria
Hi,
with version 2.0.4, gimp-data-extras is licensed as GPL-3.0-or-later.
Ciao,
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat
PGP fingerprint: D0C1 1576 CDA6 5B6E BBAE 95B2 7D53 7FCA E9F6 395D
___
devel mailing list --
Hi Daniel,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" writes:
> I'm reviewing another package (sgxsdk) which also includes a copy
> of dlmalloc with the CC0 license declaration. I wondered if you
> ever made contact with Doug Lea around this question ?
I recall trying to reach him via mail and n
Prior to release 0.1.8, python-h5io used a bundled, amalgamated
versioneer.py under CC0-1.0 to generate a _version.py file under the
same license, so the package was licensed (BSD-3-Clause AND CC0-1.0).
With release 0.1.8, upstream no longer uses Versioneer, so the package
license is now
xsdk) which also includes a copy
of dlmalloc with the CC0 license declaration. I wondered if you
ever made contact with Doug Lea around this question ?
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-
lpsolve-5.5.2.11-3.fc39 changed a license from:
LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Bison-exception-2.2
to:
LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Bison-exception-2.2 AND BSD-3-clause
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I corrected a license tag for cvs package from:
BSD and GPL+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and zlib and Public Domain
to:
GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND Latex2e-translated-notice AND
LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-SGMLSpm` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Update license to SPDX format
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SGMLSpm/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-SGMLSpm` that you
are following:
``
Update license to SPDX format
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SGMLSpm/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list
The vhostmd package was mistakenly tagged as GPLv2+, and has
been corrected to LGPL-2.1-or-later during the SPDX conversion.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-
Hello,
The license for strawberry has been corrected and converted to SPDX
from "GPLv2 and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2 and ASL 2.0 and MIT and Boost" to
"MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later". Refer
to the spec file for the license breakdown by source fil
Hi
net-snmp license has been transformed to SPDX license format and corrected
from BSD to Net-SNMP and OpenSSL
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
___
devel mailing list -- devel
Hi
license for xsane package has been migrated to SPDX format and corrected
from GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ to GPL-2.0-or-later and LGPL-3.0-or-later
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
___
devel mailing
Hi
OpenCV license has been migrated to SPDX license format and corrected
from BSD to BSD-3-Clause and Apache-2.0 and ISC.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
___
devel mailing list -- devel
1 - 100 of 2380 matches
Mail list logo
