Am Montag, 11. Juli 2022, 13:34:14 CEST schrieb Kevin Kofler: > David Redondo wrote: > > Am Montag, 11. Juli 2022, 12:37:09 CEST schrieben Sie: > >> Please note that Gitlab and other places still do rely on LICENSE (or > >> COPYING) files being present (and I guarantee there is distribution > >> tooling out there that does the same too) so I wouldn't be too quick to > >> shoot down LICENSE files in the root of repositories. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ben > > > > That ship has long sailed. > > At least for frameworks and most of plasma has been converted. > > In the case of the GNU licenses, it is actually a violation of the license > to not ship a LICENSE/COPYING file along with the project. (This matters as > soon as you incorporate even a handful lines of third-party code under the > same license.) > > It is also Fedora policy that upstream SHOULD include a license file and > that we will file bugs upstream to request them being added where they are > missing. I believe that Fedora is not the only distribution with such a > policy. > > So any commits removing license files ought to be reverted ASAP. A pointer > is not enough. > > Kevin Kofler
Do the licenses really require these specially named files? Note that all used licenses in the repo are all included in the repos in a LICENSES folder. it would be a massive oversight and afaik there were never complains from fedora when this was started three years ago (https://phabricator.kde.org/ T11550) David
