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=818454 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka <[email protected]> 2012-05-09 07:49:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > Thank you for comments! > > > > > > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > - License is GPLv2+, not just GPLv2 (try running licensecheck on > > > > > COPYING or > > > > > linecache19.rb). > > > > So please check the above comment on License: line > > > > > > > > > > Yep, I saw that. The license in the mentioned files is however clearly > > > GPLv2+. > > > So I would suggest querying the upstream what's actually right. > > > > Stricter license tag is no problem here. > > > > I do not consider "stricter is no problem" to be a good solution. Sorry, but > not having the license clear is a blocker for me. So "README" says GPLv2, other parts says GPLv2+ or so, and the license is _clearly_ GPLv2. We can say "GPLv2 and GPLv2+" (license guideline allows this writing: see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ), however in this case, "GPLv2 and GPLv2+" is the same as GPLv2. So the license is actually clear. -- 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
