Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477533 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-20 00:26:33 EDT --- Thank you. (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code > > > files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be > > > more appropriate. > > - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2"+"? > > (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is > > under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged > > from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license > > tag on website is wrong....) > > > > On the bottom of the homepage for this gem: > http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/ > there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full > text of GPLv2 (which has the "or later" clause). > > Don't you think we should believe the website? - LICENSE section says this is just under GPL and the following link shows just GPLv2 license text ("any later" clause is just a example also written in "other" GPLv2 license text). So this does not render this package to be under GPLv2. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-mechanize Short Description: A handy web browsing ruby object Owners: mtasaka Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: (nobody) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review