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=525540 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-gtkhtml - MinGW |mingw32-gtkhtml3 - MinGW |Windows port of GtkHTML |Windows port of GtkHTML --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-11 13:29:28 EDT --- I can see you've changed the package name to mingw32-gtkhtml3, so I'm updating the review request ticket's summary with the new name too. The package looks good, except for two issues: License tag ----------- The first version of mingw32-gtkhtml had License: 'LGPLv2+', however native gtkhtml3 package has 'LGPLv2+ and GPLv2'. When I pointed out that the two license tags above differ, you updated the license in mingw32-gtkhtml3 to read 'GPLv2+'. I went over the source files in gtkhtml-3.29.3, and they all appear to be LGPLv2+, so I think the native gtkhtml3 package has got the license tag wrong. The configure script (and other build scripts) are indeed licensed under GPLv2+ with exceptions, but they are not included in, and thus don't alter the final license of the resulting binary rpm package. So I'd suggest to change the License tag back to LGPLv2+, sorry. License files ------------- The updated gtkhtml-3.29.3 source tarball has two license files, COPYING and COPYING.LIB. The former is a GPL license (I suppose that's just there for autoconf/libtool scripts), but COPYING.LIB is the actual LGPL license text which needs to be included in the rpm. Currently only COPYING is included. Please add COPYING.LIB to %doc. -- 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