I have hesitation about this choice of license. It is also not Free. I commented on the GitLab discussion.

~~We cannot use CC-BY-ND.~~ Ignore me, I thought it was NC. This is what happens when I read first thing in the morning.

To @ngompa's comment, I just noticed that the contents of the LICENSE.txt file are CC-BY-NC-ND, not CC-BY-ND. @msuchy I assume that is an error.

Well that explains why I was confused. :sweat_smile:

Huh. This PR is so old - I have no idea how this mistake happened. But yeah, this was definitely my mistake. I downloaded the new text from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalcode and put it in the LICENSE.txt. PR updated.

Note that this license doesn't actually change the trademark notice information.

LGTM. +1.

@msuchy The trademark notice statement should not be deleted since trademark and copyright law are two separate aspects.

I'd recommend renaming COPYING to TRADEMARKS and LICENSE.txt to LICENSE

+1 to TRADEMARKS file

I can return portion of the text that refers to trademark. But the last paragraph is IMHO bogus and duplicate to the license.

I updated it - what do you think?

You don't really need the license sentence. You already have a license file.

And these files need to be installed with the package.

I removed the license sentence.

I checked all the files and find several files that refers to COPYING file. I updated them.

But this project does not include the SPEC file, so inclusion in the package has to be done in dist-git only. And only after the new release of this project.

PR updated.

:thumbsup:

Since Red Hat legal wrote the original license, I really want them to chime in here before we hit merge.