https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189985
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to blinxen from comment #3)
[fedora-review-service-build]
I updated the SPEC + SRPM file and uploaded it to same place.
Thanks, I will take another look.
> For Rust packages, the License tag of the main package usually
reflects the license of the crate.
Could you put this in your list of stuff that you want to add to the Rust
Packaging Guidelines :D?
Well, this isn't part of the Rust Packaging Guidelines - at least not any more.
It was actually there, but was moved to the Legal docs:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_rust_packages
> You also shouldn't "simplify" the license that
much anymore ... according to latest guidance from Red Hat legal, these licenses:
Thanks for the info! Do you have the relevant documentation at hand?
Basically here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_l...
and these sections for when to use SPDX AND and OR:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_combined_disju...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189985