Hey,
I confirmed it with upstream.
The files with GPL 2 license were actually not included in compilation and
> are now removed. Most of the small files without license are test data
> which obviously cannot be edited to contain license, but I have omitted the
> license from individual code
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:11:32PM +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
> On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with it, and is run as part of Fedora
review). The query primarily
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm packaging tpcclib
>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
>> and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
>>
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
Should it
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
Should it be "GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ "or something else?
Thanks,
