Josef Řídký wrote:
> The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
> GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It is normal for GPL-2.0-or-later code to come with a copy of the GPLv2
COPYING. You cannot distinguish GPL-2.0-only from GPL-2.0-or-later from the
COPYING f
So, without getting into the issue of whether it actually makes sense to
track differences between GPLvn "only" vs "or-later", since this is just
continuing a practice that was in place in Fedora for years (I think ever
since 2008 at least?): This is where you can't really rely on askalono,
because
This license was mentioned in the output of the 'askalono' command run over
the gimp source code.
The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It's true that no other checks were made upon files there as I didn't
expect to have
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 3:54 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
> GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
>
Curious why you say th
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:53:25AM +0200, Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution
> not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
> Explicitly l
The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
GPL-3.0-only
Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
Explicitly licensed under BSD-3-Clause are 'script-fu/ftx' and
'script-fu/tinyscheme'
Josef Řídký wrote:
> Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
> package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
> license.
And they are not linked together? Because if they are, we have a problem!
Kevin Kofler
_
Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
license.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:34 PM Kevin Kofler via deve
Josef Řídký wrote:
> AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only
Oops?
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedorapro
Good point. Thanks for the typo correction.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 2:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> >
> > A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
>
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
> GPLv3+ and GPLv3
> to
> GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3.0-Clause
>
Do you mean "BSD-3-Clause"? I don't know of a "BSD-3.0-Clause"...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, the
A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
GPLv3+ and GPLv3
to
GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3.0-Clause
in Fedora Rawhide
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
__
12 matches
Mail list logo
