Are you sure? I checked the first package on your list. And here is the license analysis
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/foot.html
and it seems to me that foot.spec should be

# /foot/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/foot.svg is CC-BY-SA-4.0
License: MIT AND CC-BY-SA-4.0

To ease your work I produced scancode reports for all your packages. They are located here:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/

You are right, some of those shouldn't be in the list.
Removed foot, fuzzel, neovim-qt and rofi. To be fair, licensecheck doesn't catch most of the issues. I guess I shouldn't trust licensecheck output anymore :(

For the remaining ones, it's a simple case of bundled Wayland protocols which we commonly consider not affecting the license of the resulting binary.

I guess I shouldn't trust licensecheck output anymore :(

To be fair, no tool is perfect, so it is good to combine several tools. But that means more work for maintainers :( I expect when we settle down with SPDX that the tooling will become much better as it will be much easer to guess and determine the licenses.

For the remaining ones, it's a simple case of bundled Wayland protocols which we commonly consider not affecting the license of the resulting binary.

Fair enough. I will trust you in this.

This PR has been migrated to GitHub as a placeholder issue:
https://github.com/fedora-copr/license-validate/issues/30