https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
--- Comment #37 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe(a)iki.fi> ---
(In reply to Gregory PAKOSZ from comment #35)
Though it shouldn't be necessary: IANAL but WTFPL v2 is supposed
to be
compatible with GPL v2 and v3. It's at least listed as such by Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
Hi Gregory,
That is right, whereami's license is ok for Fedora, either of the given options
would work actually. The problem I have with the licenses is not that dosbox-x
could not be included in Fedora. It is just that the licenses should be listed
correctly in specfile Licenses field, and the conditions for each license
fulfilled.
A very common case is that popular permissive licenses like MIT, BSD, APL2 all
require distributing the original copyright and permissions notices with the
source or compiled program. When a project bundles it dependencies like
dosbox-x does, this results in requirement to include a lot of those notices.
As an example, consider the Visual Studio Code notices file (from some old
version, the current one is much longer):
https://gist.github.com/dm/e5581d6c37b408c819ec
Another example would be this Oracle HTTP Server docs page, fulfilling the
license conditions of open source software they have used:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b12255/license.htm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component