On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:51:04 +0200 Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos > > wrote: > > > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix. > > > > > Straightforward, but impossible for a pacakger. Because it's a part > > of the license declaration, only an author can change it, as the > > license reads: > > > > [...]keep intact all the > > notices that refer to this License [...] > > > > That's the reason why I consider this rpmlint warning quite > > unhelpful. > > Do you mean the author of the software or the license? I've seen that > debated over and over again and my understanding is that packagers are > not supposed to patch the file, but upstream developers (which is the > case here) should correct that error. Our wiki links to a version of > GPL 2 with the correct address: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address I view the rpmlint warning as a hint to try to get upstream to fix the license text. In the case of unresponsive upstreams, we just have to live with it. Paul. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
