https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
--- Comment #37 from Otto Urpelainen oturpe@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