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 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-06 15:24:49 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." I think we're generally okay to ship source which has no specific header but is clearly marked with an acceptable license in other ways by upstream (dee is on the project page, and by the inclusion of the license files in the tarball); having a header on each specific source file is a 'nice-to-have', not a must. But I'll CC spot to check this. "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." No, it doesn't. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* rpm. When in doubt, ask." -- 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