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=591730 --- Comment #7 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-28 17:27:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > ok, I have the inconsistent time fixed. Looks good > I _think_ I have the license tags right, but it's nicely complicated. > Could you check it over or can we ask spot to doublecheck? Thanks. I agree that it's complicated :( I'm afraid I think that it still needs a little work. The "copyright" file in the upstream tarball appears to be a correct listing of the various licenses attached to the various files, though some of the files it lists aren't present anymore (e.g. jquery) I'm reading: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios and it does seem like the package "contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses" (as per that wiki page). My reading of that section is that each subpackage should have its own "License" field, listing all of the licenses with an "and" separator. Going through the subpackages - core subpackage: your license tag appears to be correct - desktop subpackage: "pyjd" has some GPL-2 files, so I think that needs adding - ui subpackage: seems to be all Apache, I think - examples subpackage: has Apache, GPL-2, MIT, (MPL-1.1 or LGPL-2.1 or GPL-2) - doc subpackage: apache, I think. I am not a lawyer. My recommendation is to ask for this to be doublechecked by https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal -- 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