Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727152 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej <[email protected]> 2011-09-19 04:52:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > other > > legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > Guidelines[3,4]. > > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > License type: ASL 2.0 > > This part seems to be incorrect. I believe under Fedora guidelines the License > field in the package spec file (currently "LGPLv2+") should be > "LGPLv2+ and ASL 1.1". Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a template and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that taken into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
