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=515046 --- Comment #4 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> 2009-08-15 16:03:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Jan -- > > 1. I believe the artistic license version 2.0 it's OK for Fedora [1]. Did you read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?. I don't argue about validity of artistic license for fedora, artistic license is completely ok. In readme for XML::Parser::Lite::Tree::Xpath is: "License: Perl Artistic License 2.0 This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. " So from this i see it is dual licensed (artistic 2.0 and same terms as perl itself). from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag "Perl itself is dual licensed, under both the GPL and Artistic licenses. Many perl modules follow this practice; when they do, the license tag should be filled out as "GPL+ or Artistic", not the other way around." >From this point, i don't see only "Artistic license" acceptable, there should be "GPL+ or Artistic" to follow perl specific packaging guidelines. > 2. I think the tests fail because of features not implemented, but I can > confirm that with the developer. Anyway I'll check the whole test part, thank > you. Please check, I'm looking into this too to determine if code is broken or functions are just not implemented at all. So far it looks like broken code for me. -- 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