https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269731
--- Comment #16 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- (In reply to LelouBil from comment #12) > Actually, I don't understand why this is wrong: > > > If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be > > documented in the spec. > > I think I correctly populated the "License:" field with "GPL-3.0-only AND > 0BSD". Each source file has a license identifier at the top which specified > which license is applicable While fedora-review asks for this, it isn’t formally required anymore; see https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/work_items/64. If you still wanted to satisfy this request, you could add a brief comment noting that all source files have SPDX-License-Identifier headers indicating their respective licenses. I don’t think anyone could reasonably find fault with that. -- 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=2269731 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202269731%23c16 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
