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=659082 --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-28 11:57:36 EST --- Here is the discussion in the packaging list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-January/007593.html (In reply to comment #3) > * licensing: I'm not sure what you want me to do. Where do you want me to > document them ? I can ask upstream what the situation is, but that will > probably take time. I don't think the package itself should block on it, what > do you think ? For now I added MPLv1.0 as a license. > Until upstream makes things clear, you will need to go into each source file and find out its license, and indicate it as a comment in the specfile. as an example: # python/RDF.py is LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 or MIT # python/example.py is LGPLv2 or GPLv2 or MPLv1.1 # perl/* are LGPL+ or GPL+ or MPLv? (please check this, I did not see GPL or LGPL or MPL versions in the headers) # ... (list all other files with different licenses) # the rest of the code is licensed with ... %package -n perl-redland License: LGPL+ or GPL+ or MPL %package -n python-redland License: (LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 or MIT) and (LGPLv2 or GPLv2 or MPLv1.1) and ... etc. -- 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