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=553483 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Harmsen <mharmsen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-18 19:41:26 EST --- Hi, I have looked into those -ui packages now and saw some strange source code licensing. I see dogtag-pki-ra-ui, dogtag-pki-tps-ui, dogtag-pki-console-ui tarballs and found same kind of file got licensed at one tarball as GPLv2 and in other tarball as LGPLv2. e.g. head dogtag-pki-ra-ui-1.3.0/shared/docroot/ra/admin/console/config/header.vm ===> gave me GPLv2 head dogtag-pki-tps-ui-1.3.0/shared/docroot/tps/admin/console/config/header.vm ===> gave me LGPLv2 Do you see some kind of consistency should be there in upstream tarballs for licensing of these files? I think I only got licensing issues and rest srpms look ok to be approved. I only need feedback like do you want to change upstream source licenses? Otherwise with this suggested license tag, I will approve reviews provided changes will be done at time of initial import of these packages. I also had discussion with nirik about licensing for these packages and got to know, we should use license tag as "GPLv2 and LGPLv2", reason "someone could take just one of the LGPLv2 files and use it in another project, with LPGL...". So, the packages that I see need to be corrected are dogtag-pki-ra-ui, dogtag-pki-tps-ui, dogtag-pki-console-ui, dogtag-pki-common-ui. Thanks & Regards, Parag -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review