On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 9:49 AM Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> wrote:
On 12/11/2022 03:12, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>>> # src/utils/qurltlds_p.h which is MPL-2.0 OR
GPL-2.0-or-later OR
>>>> LGPL-2.1-or-later,
>>> Given the nature of this file, I'd just omit this.
>> why do you say this?
> This header file basically just contains a list of domain name
> suffixes. In a number of cases I can remember over the years Fedora
> has treated nominal nonfree licenses on analogous kinds of data as not
> being an obstacle to Fedora packaging. Unlike those other cases, here
> we don't have to address the issue of whether there is anything
> actually licensable in this file; the file appears to be
> self-compliant at least with MPL 2.0 and the licenses indicated here
> are all Fedora-allowed. But it seems like an appropriate opportunity
> to slightly simplify the License: field which I'm mindful that Arthur
> is probably already finding very complex (given that it was previously
> just "GPLv3").
>
> Richard
That would be appreciated! However, there is the problem that due to my
limited knowledge about licensing, I cannot defend this choice if
questions are raised in the future. With that in mind, it might be
better to include it anyway?
I don't know if it's better but it seems okay to include it.
Richard