https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645765
--- Comment #3 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny(a)redhat.com> ---
Sorry for my blindness to "issues" section, was concentrating merely
on the checkboxes since my brain was learnt that there's usually a lot
of ballast coming from fedora-review (meaning it likely needs some
love to catch up the evolution):
- The file protocol/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml is licensed with
"NTP (legal disclaimer)". It's not on the list of good licenses. You
should check with Fedora Legal whether this is a good license.
Indeed it is a good license, and that's just unfortunate than
licensecheck provides a misleading verdict vs. how Fedora classifies
the license -- this is the matching text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer
but it contains "and sell" addition to the very first sentences, but
this matches with, e.g.,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style
(see also [bug 1475962 comment 12]).
Do you see any conflict here? I shall fix the wording in the spec to
this very interpretation since otherwise I am carrying this cargo cult
confusion (originating in wlroots since [bug 1529352 comment 5]),
though.
And you should likely do the same with sway, since the protocol file
in question was borrowed there :-)
- Upstream files are not properly licensed, most files are missing
license headers. This should at least be reported to upstream.
Cannot find anyting to that effect in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging...
Can you point out the particular part to me that asks for this, please?
(Again, sway is in the same boat here.)
My TODO is to to get the slurp-grim.desktop more into shape
(especially Categories).
--
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