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=490171 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-25 19:59:42 EDT --- Please note that if you wish to indicate a license which differs from the license indicated by the code itself, you must include some kind of statement from the copyright holder indicating that the license tag you've chosen properly represents their wishes. It's permissible to include an email from them, or to point to a statement on an upstream web site if you reasonably believe is authored by the code's copyright holder, but it doesn't suffice to just change the License: tag. I can't see anything at all in the code which would indicate that GPLv2 only is correct, so you must have corresponded with upstream about it. Just drop that email into another source file and install it as %doc. Also, the spec needs to indicate which files in the package are under which license. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios for more information. Finally, please bump the release each time you change your package. -- 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