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=654862 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-30 14:22:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > * License: The GPL file included is GPLv2 text. But the section "How to Apply > These Terms to Your New Programs" explain how to apply the license to the code. > But the code actually miss such license header. > The GPLv2 license explain that's 'safer' to apply license text in 'each' files > from the saphire code. That will also clarify either it is GPLv2 (only) or > GPLv2+ > I've searched in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines > and nothing state there is a need to have the license in header so far. > But at least GPL isn't accurate in the license field. (it is either GPLv2 or > GPLv2+). - Well, if no files (other than GPLv2 license text) specifies the version of GPL, the license tag should be "GPL+", not "GPLv2" or "GPLv2+", as written on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F > * Keeping timestamp on header installation: NOT OK - Ah, thank you > Theses headers will then conflict on multilib package - (My recognition is that timestamp difference only won't cause multilib conflict, however anyway I will fix this, thank you) > saphire is APPROVED. Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: saphire Short Description: Yet another shell Owners: mtasaka Branches: f13 f14 -- 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