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=634091 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) | Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-05 22:44:44 EDT --- I would strongly recommend that the upstream properly indicate the license on each and every source file, but the inclusion of LICENSE in the tarball (and in source control) seems to make it clear that it is their intent for this code to be licensed as Artistic 2.0. Also, I do not see any evidence that implies that this code has been copied from any other source, or that any other licenses are in play but undocumented. Please ask upstream to do the following: * Indicate the license is Artistic 2.0 in some documentation (README would be fine) * Indicate the license in all of the source code files: (Something like this is sufficient: "This code is available under the terms of the Artistic 2.0 license. For full license details, see LICENSE.") However, we'll operate on good faith here and assume Artistic 2.0 is correct. Lifting FE-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