Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 ------- Additional Comments From Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-23 10:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) >the point of the rule is to ensure that the license tag in the RPM matches the >actual license of the upstream package; that's something the reviewer needs to >check. >IMHO the presence of the license in the source files itself satisfies >the text. But anyoone whoe only get the binary package doen't recieve a verbatry copy of the license, so you don't aware about you rights given on the license. Event a pointer to a URL is not enough, becouse you don't know, if the URL will be exist in the future and for the other hand, the text publish on the URL may be changend in the funter. But for the reciever of the package only the contest of the license text of the time of packaging may be relevant. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
