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=521719 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-11 14:27:35 EDT --- You wrote now in the spec file: 10 # we don't use the embedded cryptopp library 11 # but link against the one in Fedora 12 # 13 # all the files we distribute in the binary rpm 14 # are GPLv2+ or TGPPL 15 # 16 # see copyright for details So doesn't the license tag need to be 'GPLV2+ or TGPPL'? It should, but I can't find TGPPL in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing... And from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names: ''' The License: field must be filled with the appropriate license Short License identifier(s) from the "Good License" tables on the Fedora Licensing page. If your license does not appear in the tables, it needs to be sent to fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post). If the license is approved, it will be added to the appropriate table. ''' I think you should ask there, what to do, but this license looks GPL-compatible at the first sight. So this license 'issue' is now, to just use 'GPLv2+' or 'GPLv2+ or TGPPLv1+'. ____________ Anything else is fine now. -- 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