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=470066 --- Comment #8 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-28 10:53:40 EDT --- After contacting the upstream developers they sent me a new version of the code where they have fixed the inconsistent license information. I have created an updated package based on this version: Spec URL: http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl.spec SRPM URL: http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl-1.10-1.fc9.src.rpm The source (qtl_1.10-28.tar.gz) differs from the version you can download from the website (qtl_1.10-27.tar.gz), but the only difference is the updated license information. Since the license information now is consistent I have reverted the License tag in the spec file to be GPLv2+. -- 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