On 04/01/2009 05:05 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote: > Dear all, > > I am having a small question/problem for the review [1]. > Upstream updated the sources [2]-[3] which now mention in the > description file: > -------------------------- > License: Artistic-2.0 > ExtraLicenses: The following files in the 'src' directory are licensed > for all > use by Jim Kent, in a manner compatible with the Artistic 2.0 license: > common.c/h, memalloc.c/h, localmem.c/h, hash.c/h, errabort.c/h, > rbTree.c/h, > dlist.c/h, errCatch.h > ---------------------------- > > How should I mention that in the spec file ? > Should I keep Artistic 2.0 ? Those files have an extremely permissive license on them. If that license was the only license in the package, we would use "Copyright only" to reflect that. I'd recommend changing the tag to: License: Artistic 2.0 and Copyright only ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-r-devel-list mailing list Fedora-r-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-r-devel-list
