https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231427
--- Comment #18 from Dave Johansen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #16) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > > > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13) > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > > Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: > > > > ... > > > > > > Fixed. > > > > licensecheck still lists several files that are not Artistic 2.0 or GPLv2+. > > Updated; please, read comment above License tag. I'm definitely not a license expert and so please pardon me continuing to check on this issue. I read the license guidelines ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ) and FAQ ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations ) and I believe that you need to list GPLv2 and GPLv3. I'm not positive that that's required but I know that you will for sure be in compliance with the requirements listed on that page. Also, I personally would feel more comfortable if the files that are under different licenses that are unused were removed as part of %setup so it could be 100% certain that they are not part of the generated/packaged files, but I didn't see anything about that in the guidelines, so I'll leave that up to you. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
