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=563598 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-14 06:30:16 EST --- The licence says « MIT », which is confirmed by the « COPYING » file and the source file headers. However, there are two scripts (« missing » and « depcomp ») that are licensed under the GPLv2+. Shouldn't the license field be « MIT and GPLv2+ » instead? I'm blocking FE-Legal on this as I'm not sure, meanwhile I'll go on with the rest of the review. -- 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