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: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-23 08:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Sorry, I am going to have to cancel this submission as the License file is not > in the tarball, and in accordance with the "pristine sources" principle I will > not change the tarball in any way from what is on ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/ > > (The package originates from a posting to comp.sources.unix, which I assume > means it is public domain, but there is no License file.) Parag is confusing the roles of "upstream" and "packager". Sometimes the two are the same, in which case upstream should ensure that licensing information is included properly in the distribution. In this case, "upstream" and "packager" are different, and the packager should *not* be fiddling with the tarball, Indeed, the package review guidelines do not require the inclusion of license text if upstream does not provide it. There are very few circumstances in which a packager should alter an upstream tarball (e.g. it contains patented content that is not used in the package), and adding a license file is certainly not one of them. Please continue with your submission. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review