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=537325 --- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-16 19:13:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > Fedora Review lv2-fil-plugins 2010-07-15 > Thanks again! > Fix spelling error: whithout → without > Fix BE vs. AE: coloured → colored > Fixed. > + Package is named according to guidelines (and fits well with > existing lv2-*-plugins packages) > + Specfile is named after the package > + Package license tag (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+) is Fedora approved > > Licenses of installed components: > > * filter.so: > filter.[ch] → GPLv2+ > lv2filter.[ch] → GPLv2 > lv2plugin.c → GPLv2 > log.[ch] → GPLv2 > lv2_ui.c → GPLv2+ > lv2_ui.h → LGPLv2+ > lv2_external_ui.h → Public domain > License for aggregate: GPLv2 > > * ui → license statement in file: GPLv2 > > * filter.ttl, lv2logo.png, manifest.ttl → no license statement in the > files → assume GPLv2 since this is what upstream claims is the > default for the project > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of > the binary rpm." > > - So as far as I read the guidelines a license tag of "GPLv2" is enough > That was the original license tag I set on this package (2.0-1). However, Michael pointed out that this is wrong. See comments 1-8 above. I also asked this on Fedora Legal list https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00029.html The outcome was "There is no such thing as effective license, or no such thing as most restrictive license wins. List all licenses included in the tag". So I changed it to LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ > ? BuildRequires are sane, but build used bundles waf instead of system's, > intentional? > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541524#c5 This one even crashes the system waf. :( SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-fil-plugins.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-fil-plugins-2.0-3.fc13.src.rpm Changelog: 2.0-3 - More language fixes -- 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