On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 07:11:46AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote:
> The COPYING file in the source tree is a relative symbolic link
> to LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt.
>
> ben@musicbox:~/fedora/other/mingw-glib2$ fedpkg prep && find .
> -name COPYING -exec ls -l '{}' +
>
> […]
>
> lrwxrw
The COPYING file in the source tree is a relative symbolic link
to LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt.
ben@musicbox:~/fedora/other/mingw-glib2$ fedpkg prep && find .
-name COPYING -exec ls -l '{}' +
[…]
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 ben ben 30 Jun 13 07:41
./mingw-glib2-2.85.1-build/glib-2.85.1/
On Tuesday, 04 March 2025 at 23:55, Christian Krause wrote:
> Hi,
>
> scummvm-2.9.0:
> - added: BSL-1.0
> - now:
> License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND LicenseRef-Callaway-LGPLv2+ AND
> LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD AND LicenseRef-Callaway-OFL and
> LicenseRef-Callaway-MIT and ISC and Catharon AND Apache
Dec 6, 2021 4:08:02 PM Mikel Olasagasti :
> [...]
> Just updated linode-cli to use the new v4 client that changed the
> license to BSD.
> [...]
For the record, the previous license was `Artistic or GPLv2`, which is less
permissive. Here is a link to the commit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rp
Logon to https://highadventure.in to enjoy
- RiverRafting in Manali
https://highadventure.in/activities/River-Rafting-in-Manali/5ff3029dd551d54f7c53b4d1
- Paragliding in Manali
https://highadventure.in/activities/Paragliding-in-Manali/603106ee24f3d6eb8365ca34
Yes, exactly, this is based on an audit of actual source file licenses
via a combination of licensecheck and manual inspection.
I listed the full details in a spec file comment, but basically, the
files that are sources for the compiled binaries are either (LGPLv2 or
LGPLv3) or GPLv3, so the b
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 9:06 PM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:26:52PM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote:
> > The License field of wlcs has been corrected from “GPLv2 or GPLv3” to
> > “GPLv3”.
>
> https://github.com/MirServer/wlcs (is this the right repo?) contains
> both COPYING.GPL2 a
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:26:52PM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote:
> The License field of wlcs has been corrected from “GPLv2 or GPLv3” to
> “GPLv3”.
https://github.com/MirServer/wlcs (is this the right repo?) contains
both COPYING.GPL2 and COPYING.GPL3. How did you determine correct
license?
--
V Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 08:58:10AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):
> Benjamin Beasley kirjoitti 8.9.2021 klo 22.07:
> > The license for the mpir package has been simplified from “LGPLv3+ and
> > LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv3+ or GPLv2+) and BSD” back to the effective license of
> > “LGPLv3+”.
> >
> > See
Benjamin Beasley kirjoitti 8.9.2021 klo 22.07:
The license for the mpir package has been simplified from “LGPLv3+ and LGPLv2+
and (LGPLv3+ or GPLv2+) and BSD” back to the effective license of “LGPLv3+”.
See also
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_d
Hi,
On 7/9/21 6:56 PM, Ben Beasley wrote:
> Hans,
>
> Thanks for noticing, and for your very reasonable question.
>
> In all of these cases, the CC0 component was due to the AppData XML file for
> a desktop application. (In libinstpatch, the Public Domain component was due
> to md5-plumb “copy
Hans,
Thanks for noticing, and for your very reasonable question.
In all of these cases, the CC0 component was due to the AppData XML file
for a desktop application. (In libinstpatch, the Public Domain component
was due to md5-plumb “copylib” source files that are linked into the
library.)
Hi Benjamin,
On 7/9/21 3:47 PM, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> I’ve updated several of my packages to use only the “effective license” in
> their License fields, in cases where it was very clear that a single
> effective license was correct. The following packages are affected:
>
> - agenda: “GPLv3+
Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative information
Le Mentok
https://lementok.com/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://d
* Elliott Sales de Andrade:
> Since this package is basically a copy of some sources in LLVM, this
> change is a reflection of the ongoing efforts to relicense LLVM to ASL
> 2.0, which are only partially complete.
I have asked about this before, and LLVM is not currently available
under the Apach
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 11:50, Elliott Sales de Andrade <
quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The license tag on python-cligj appears to have always been wrongly
> tagged as MIT. I have now corrected it to BSD in Rawhide while
> updating to its latest beta, and will let this trickle down to other
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:41 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> rust-crossbeam-channel-0.4.3-1.fc33 has changed its license from a
> combined "(MIT or ASL 2.0) and BSD" to just "MIT or ASL 2.0".
> See also: https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/issues/536
On 03. 10. 19 23:34, alcir...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to build an RPM of a python package.
The LICENSE file of the python package states that it is released under
MIT license.
But there is a file, _version.py, where you can read:
Parts of `extract_components` are taken from the pypa packagi
This is horrifying :) Curious how much time it took to figure that out..
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 14:21 Petr Pisar wrote:
> After unretiring teckit I reviewed the sources and corrected a license
> tag from
>
> LGPLv2+ or CPL
>
> to
>
> (LGPLv2+ or CPL) and (LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv2.0 or MPLv1.1)
Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> Upstream has made a new release that changes the license from GPLv2+
> to GPLv3. I intend to build this later today. Since its main use and
> linkage was to GSL which is GPLv3 only, this is effectively the
> license the built work is already under anyway.
No more
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:08:31AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 08:14:11AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Thanks, this is useful. Shouldn't this be prominently linked from
> > https://getfedora.org/ though?
>
> Probably! Can you file a ticket with websites?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 08:14:11AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Thanks, this is useful. Shouldn't this be prominently linked from
> https://getfedora.org/ though?
Probably! Can you file a ticket with websites? We're doing a big refresh of
that site anyway for F30.
--
Matthew Mille
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:47:26AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:49:01PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I was trying to answer the question "How is the license of Fedora as a
> > whole advertised?" (e.g. in the sense of what can I do with an ISO image
> >
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:49:01PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I was trying to answer the question "How is the license of Fedora as a
> whole advertised?" (e.g. in the sense of what can I do with an ISO image
> I download from https://getfedora.org/en/workstation/download/).
> Do we
The most recent discussion about this topic was here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IF3ZSIUBFXN24XOJTL7CLQVB66ATRTYY/
Vít
Dne 21.5.2017 v 22:10 Sandro Bonazzola napsal(a):
> Hi,
> I was trying today to prepare a single spec file for both Fe
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 04:19:19PM +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> The license of perl-Test-Prereq changed from (GPL+ or Artistic) to
> Artistic 2.0.
Note that FSF considers Artistic 2.0 to be GPL-compatible.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense2
--
Matthew Miller
Fed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:23:06 -0500
Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> What does it mean?
Main change is that we will no longer produce source isos, it changes
the license of the compilation of fedora to match the fpca[1].
Dennis
[1]
https://fedoraproje
What does it mean?
On May 10, 2014 12:16 PM, "Dennis Gilmore" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096434 the license of
> fedora-release has changed from gplv2 to MIT
>
> regards
>
> Dennis
> -BEGIN PGP SIGN
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 05. September 2012 um 12:08 Uhr
Von: "Milan Bartos"
An: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Betreff: Re: license question for bug review
A> I'am working on a bug review of uayadeque
A> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853
> I'am working on a bug review of uayadeque
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
>
> can someone give me a hint how to handle license type of files in the
> spec file.
> HMAC-SHA-224/256/384/512 implementation in src/hmac/hmac_sha2.c
> FIPS 180-2 SHA-224/256/384/512 implementatio
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> GlusterFS-3.3.0, which is to GA soon, has had (another) license change. Much
> of it now under a dual license: GPLv2 or LGPLv3+, with a small number of
> pieces still remain under GPLv3+.
IMO:
License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+
modulo the com
2011/12/9 Siddhesh Poyarekar :
> Hi,
>
> I got a request to include demosaic packs into the LibRaw build to
> support some digital cameras:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760638
>
> With this inclusion, the LibRaw package will have a GPLv3+ license
> since the demosaic packs are re
On 08/26/2011 03:47 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am looking at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
>
> It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file. I am
> reviewing pipebench at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731219
> The issue with
On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am looking at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
>
> It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file.
No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation
Upstreams need to license their works prop
The license is CeCILL version 1. Upstream is looking into including
the current license text in the next release.
2010/3/30 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Sergio Pascual wrote:
>
>> Hi all:
>>
>> the new version of swarp in rawhide (2.17.6) will have a CeCILL
>> license. Previously, swarp
Uhmm, it's not clear from the sources. I will ask upstream
Sergio
2010/3/30 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Sergio Pascual wrote:
>
>> Hi all:
>>
>> the new version of swarp in rawhide (2.17.6) will have a CeCILL
>> license. Previously, swarp was distributed under GPLv2
>
> Which CeCILL l
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> the new version of swarp in rawhide (2.17.6) will have a CeCILL
> license. Previously, swarp was distributed under GPLv2
Which CeCILL license will it be?
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproje
37 matches
Mail list logo
