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=551857 --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-04 03:56:36 EST --- Actually the mandatory way of deciding the license is the source. In this particular case, the "fwsnort" perl script includes the following paragraph: Copyright (C) 2003-2007 Michael Rash (mbr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) # # License (GNU Public License): # # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License # along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 # USA This one alone would mean GPL+. However, since the tarball - does include the GPLv2 standard file, - references it - specifies the same license in the README file, we can safely assume that GPLv2+ is the correct choice for the spec tag. -- 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