Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-08 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 06:27:17PM +0200, Jiri Kucera wrote: > Hi Zbyszek, > > reply inline > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:42 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > > > So, it doesn't really matter if

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-08 Thread Jiri Kucera
CC'ing Zbyszek On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:27 PM Jiri Kucera wrote: > Hi Zbyszek, > > reply inline > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:42 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote: >> > > So, it doesn't really matter

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-07 Thread Jiri Kucera
Hi Zbyszek, reply inline On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:42 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under > the GPLv2+ license. > > > The resulti

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-03 Thread Jiri Kucera
If the README has the last word here and it does not matter that some sequences of bits of /usr/bin/cdparanoia are licensed under GPLv2+ and the rest of it under GPLv2, so be it. On the other hand, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_mixed_source_licensi

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 02.06.21 um 17:42 schrieb Neal Gompa: For what it's worth, I prefer the effective license approach too. I'm just working with what people tell me. :( If we just mention the source license(s) in the License tag this means it will become harder to check if some software can depend on a speci

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:41 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under > > > the GPLv2+ license. > > > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) wil

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the > > GPLv2+ license. > > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2. > > […] > > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the Li

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Benjamin Beasley
> So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the > GPLv2+ license. > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2. > […] > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the > binary packages not source ones. > > BR, > >

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Andrea Musuruane
> > The issue here is that there's not a way to describe the SRPM license > separate from the binary RPM license. So that information is important > for SRPM distribution. > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the binary packages not source ones. BR, Andrea

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > I believe this patch is not correct. > > "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm." > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ > > In the README file there is writte

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Andrea Musuruane
I believe this patch is not correct. "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* rpm." https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ In the README file there is writted: "cdparanoia (the command line tool) is released under the GPLv2

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Jiri Kucera
Thanks Neal! On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1:06 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:54 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote: > > > > > > Adding broader audience: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4 > > > > > > Neither @pj

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:54 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote: > > > > Adding broader audience: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4 > > > > Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding. > > > > I'll deal with it. > This is done, a

Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote: > > Adding broader audience: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4 > > Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding. > I'll deal with it. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _

[cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

2021-06-02 Thread Jiri Kucera
Adding broader audience: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4 Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding. Regards, Jiri ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedor