https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160
Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |decathorpe(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
- "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not a valid license
identifier, as you can see
by its absence from the official list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
There was a thread about this license last year on fedora-legal-list. The
final advice is that "ASL 2.0 with the LLVM exception" is equal to "ASL
2.0"
for Fedora purposes. Therefore, the License field should be "ASL 2.0 or
MIT".
See Richard Fontana's messages in this thread:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o...
TIL. I opened a ticket with rust2rpm:
https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/163
- I would argue that CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md and ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md are
not
useful documentation for a Fedora package.
I agree. The automatic %doc detection quite rigorous, and includes lots of
stuff we don't need.
In fact, those files are *already* part of -devel files in any case, so adding
them in %doc too is redundant:
https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/164
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160