https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eug...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #20 from Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eug...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #19)
> The licensing issues I still have:
>
> 1. It really should be "MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD", without splitting it with
> parenthesis. The crucial question is: What license(s) apply to binary
> qvgeapp? The answer is, all of them, so the triplet a unit. But since the
> License field is a rabbit hole when bundled dependecies are present (e.g. we
> could start discussing the auxiliary files apart from the binary…), so I
> will just suggest you go with my suggestion, but not demand any changes at
> this point, close enough I say.
So, we get back to previous, right?
https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qvge/qvge-0.6.2-3.spec
> 2. qtpropertybrowser's license file is still missing. So either add
> LICENSE.qtpropertybrowser as well (need to work with upstream here, because
> the do not have anything suitable, README.qsint is close, but is ruined by
> its header above the license proper), or change the naming scheme to
> LICENCE.LGPLv3, etc.
As far as I know I cannot add license text to other sources with myself
(excluding _extra_ordinary situation).
Real use-case: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845322#
But from other side as a) qtpropertybrowser really has no license text in
separate file and b) not maintained for a long time
I'm planning to include head of it's source as license text:
https://github.com/qtproject/qt-solutions/blob/master/qtpropertybrowser/src/qtpropertybrowser.h
As it is not real license text then this will be LICENSE.qtpropertybrowser
PS. README.qsint is because it is not pure license text but is real README
file. IMHO I have no right to rename README into LICENSE if upstream decide to
name it as is.
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
