Jerry James wrote:
> Currently they have "LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions".
That is definitely wrong/outdated.
> I believe that most or all of them should have one of these two instead:
>
> - LGPLv3 or GPLv2+
> - LGPLv3 or GPLv2+ with exceptions
GPLv2+ is wrong, the text
Neal Gompa wrote:
> The only exception I'm aware of is the KDE Free Qt exception:
> https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/
>
> This exception governs how the license is actually governed, rather
> than how it's executed, though I believe that's where the current
> license stanza
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:36 PM Jerry James wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:57 PM Jerry James wrote:
> > I'm doing a review of a MinGW build of a Qt 6 package:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214
> >
> > During the license check portion of the review, I have become
>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:57 PM Jerry James wrote:
> I'm doing a review of a MinGW build of a Qt 6 package:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214
>
> During the license check portion of the review, I have become
> increasingly convinced that our qt5-* and qt6-* packages have
>
I'm doing a review of a MinGW build of a Qt 6 package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214
During the license check portion of the review, I have become
increasingly convinced that our qt5-* and qt6-* packages have
incorrect License fields. Currently they have "LGPLv2 with
