On Thursday 21 November 2013 13:53:10 Cliff Perry wrote: > Tomas and others, > Any concerns? > > Thanks, > Cliff > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Bug 1033062] New: License of spacewalk-branding needs to be > changed > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:51:34 +0000 > From: bugzi...@redhat.com > To: cpe...@redhat.com > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033062 > > Bug ID: 1033062 > Summary: License of spacewalk-branding needs to be changed > Product: Spacewalk > Version: 2.1 > Component: Release > Assignee: cpe...@redhat.com > Reporter: jren...@suse.de > QA Contact: satellite-qa-l...@redhat.com > > > > Description of problem: > > The license of the spacewalk-branding package needs to be changed since from > now on the following css frameworks, fonts and icons will be included with > the > package: > > - Twitter Bootstrap (Apache-2.0) > - Font Awesome (MIT and OFL-1.1) > - Roboto Font (Apache-2.0) > > Given our own GPL-2.0 sources we would probably end up with an aggregate: > > "Apache-2.0 and GPL-2.0 and MIT and OFL-1.1" > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > > 2.1.8 > > Steps to Reproduce: > > Look at spacewalk-branding.spec and the contents of the package. > > Actual results: > > License is GPLv2. > > Expected results: > > License should include the licenses of included css frameworks, fonts and > icons.
Is this report still valid? Does it need to be addressed? -MZ _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
