https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805
--- Comment #3 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
Hm, I thought that it's fine if we consider MIT as the effective license of
this package.
See also:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_li...
And especially the first example in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_...
This view is also support by the Pypi license tag that the package authors used
(i.e. just MIT):
https://pypi.org/project/zeep/
https://github.com/mvantellingen/python-zeep/blob/8a1c71d795f880761daeeec...
OTOH, MIT is actually less strict than BSD 3 clause.
Thus, I've changed the .spec license tag to 'MIT and BSD':
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gsauthof/fedora/fedora-ra...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gsauthof/fedora/fedora-ra...
--
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