https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326609 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Oh, It would make it somehow long. Since every part should be combined by AND together, I expect ((MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) would result in: (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016 Then also (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND (MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0) => (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) If I have to keep all OR in place, just few duplicates can be omitted. What I got as a result then: # (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016 # [1] # 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 # Apache-2.0 OR ISC OR MIT # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # [2] (dup 1!) # Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT # BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT # BSD-3-Clause # GPL-3.0 # ISC # ISC AND MIT AND OpenSSL # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # (dup 1,2!) # MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib # [3] # MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0 # (dup 3!) # MPL-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT # Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT # (dup 3!) License: (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016 AND (0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR ISC OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-3.0 AND ISC AND MIT AND OpenSSL AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND MPL-2.0 AND (Unlicense OR MIT) Thought about putting single licenses first and sorting OR parts to have identical ordering, but that would make even less understandable how I got the final string of licenses. I guess ability to verify the source if these is more important than sorting used licenses. I wish there was a tool sorting separate OR or AND separated parts alphabetically when making this summary. Especially when I would have to watch differences in those on rebases, where dependencies might change as well. And Unicode-DFS-2016 was simply omitted by mistake from the original list. Yes, it definitely must be present there, my mistake! -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326609 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202326609%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
