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=512523 --- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-22 10:18:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Two issues: > > 1. I haven't looked through all files yet but at first glance this package > looks a lot like being licensed GPLv2+ You're right. The GPLv2 was based on the COPYING file, but the other files say GPLv2+. I'll change that in the next release. > 2. I'd say that we need at lease some sort of documentation. Maybe a > README.Fedora pointing to the website and giving a two sentence introduction? I already noticed upstream about the missing documentation and suggested something like a offline html doc. This hopefully will come with version 0.3. I'll talk to upstream to clarify, when graphem 0.3 will be released. I'm not sure but i think it won't take that long. If it takes sudden longer I'll come back to your suggestion and add a README file pointing to the website. -- 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