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=226195 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-09 15:04:35 EDT --- Looks like "today" turned into "tomorrow", but here we go. I checked out and built the latest rawhide branch of newt. rpmlint is down to: newt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewt.so.0.52.10 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx which is a bad idea and arguably a bug in the library, but not a review blocker. newt-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is fine. So rpmlint is fine now, and upon inspection the other issues I had are fixed as well. Really the only thing I see currently is that the license on the code is rather unclear. There's nothing in the tarball that I can see which specifies which version of the LGPL is in use, which would, according to clause 13 of the included COPYING file, indicate that we are free to choose any version (i.e. LGPLv2+). Only the included spec file indicates a specific version, and I'm not absolutely certain whether or not that's a sufficient statement of intent from a legal standpoint. Still, since I believe you folks are the upstream and the specfile in the tarball does say LGPLv2 so I'm going to say that things are OK, but I do strongly suggest that you clarify the licensing, preferrably by including the proper license blocks at the start of the source files as recommended by the COPYING file, or at minimum at least say "version 2.1 of the LGPL only" somewhere in the documentation or code. APPROVED, and closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review