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=819678 --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw <[email protected]> 2012-05-08 14:53:13 EDT --- Ok, one more thing that I'd like reported here even if we can't fix it. I'm wondering if the license statement is complete. Using licensecheck and some tricks I get the following: $ licensecheck -r . | awk 'match($0,":"){print substr($0,RSTART+2)}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -g -r 768 UNKNOWN 636 *No copyright* UNKNOWN 105 BSD (2 clause) 90 GENERATED FILE 37 MIT/X11 (BSD like) 19 zlib/libpng 11 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE 9 BSD (3 clause) 4 GPL (with incorrect FSF address) 2 ISC 2 GPL (v3 or later) 2 GPL 2 BSD (4 clause) 2 BSD (2 clause) GENERATED FILE 1 *No copyright* ISC I don't see anything that's incompatible as far as I can tell but I'm no licensing guru but shouldn't the License field be something more like: License: BSD and MIT and GPL and zlib or something like that? -- 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
