Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add content_rating to metainfo and fix metadata_license #10615

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023
Merged

add content_rating to metainfo and fix metadata_license #10615

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023

Conversation

christianrauch
Copy link
Contributor

@christianrauch christianrauch commented Mar 9, 2023

This adds the tag content_rating to the metainfo.xml using the interactive form at https://odrs.gnome.org/oars.

The metadata_license states GPL-3.0 AND Apache-2.0. I assume this only applies to the project and not the metadata, i.e. this metainfo.xml itself. Usually, these metadata files use one of the "Creative Commons" licences. I propose to use the "CC0-1.0".

@christianrauch christianrauch changed the title add content_rating to metainfo add content_rating to metainfo and fix metadata_license Mar 9, 2023
@mrpollo mrpollo added the Review: Needs Attention This change was deemed important and a maintainer needs to review and sanity check label Mar 13, 2023
@booo
Copy link
Collaborator

booo commented Mar 21, 2023

Cloud you please describe which metadata we are talking about? And maybe add a link to the metainfo.xml documentation?

I guess it is fine to merge but I will wait for the feedback first.

@christianrauch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cloud you please describe which metadata we are talking about?

Well, I mean the only file that is changed by this PR (deploy/org.mavlink.qgroundcontrol.metainfo.xml) of course.

And maybe add a link to the metainfo.xml documentation?

The file is standardised: https://freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html

@booo
Copy link
Collaborator

booo commented Mar 22, 2023

Thanks a lot for the clarification.

I personally think the change is fine. I'm new to licenses changes and a bit unsure how to deal with this in a proper way even if it only concerns one stupid metadata file. Do we have to ask the right holders?

@christianrauch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do we have to ask the right holders?

Someone has to agree to change the licence of this single xml metadata file. Not sure how this is handled internally, but I assume that whoever has the right to merge PRs can decide this. Looking at the history of that file I can see that only @thopiekar committed to that file, starting in 2021.

@booo
Copy link
Collaborator

booo commented Apr 6, 2023

Thanks again for the explanation!

I will merge this now. The potential right holder had two weeks to respond to the issue. I think that's enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Review: Needs Attention This change was deemed important and a maintainer needs to review and sanity check
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants