https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Gergely Gombos from comment #4) > The repo had been forked from a GPLv3+ project [2], and is itself > distributed as GPLv3+, so actually having a mixed license would be an issue, > and upstream should be informed about it. > > Are you thinking about the icons? As I see (src/icons/README.txt) those were > LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, so they are allowed to be recombined under GPLv3. Yes, I was trying to figure out what the effective license from combining GPLv3 and LGPLv2.1 is, but I cant, I'm only getting a headache. Unless you are confident that GPLv3+ + LGPLv2+ = GPLv3+, the safest option is to use both licenses, e.g. "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+". I still can't understand why licensecheck has README.md pegged as GPLv3, but that's not important. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
