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=659746 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-06 14:44:44 EST --- Just FYI, I don't think I can pass this through review until there is at least a comment from upstream concerning the missing license headers. At least a clarification of intention in the upstream report would be enough for me as a archived statement on record. That being said...... I think you have to leave the GPLv3 in the license field because the srpm does ship with the example and test code. It's not just the binary..we do distribute the srpm's as well and the licensing tag has to make sense for both the srpm and the binary rpm. -jef -- 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