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=680936 --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-28 13:07:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Please note that no guideline we have should be construed to mean that the > packager should add any license text that is not already present in the > upstream sources. I'm not doing that at all. As I said, I was clarifying that with upstream what the license is, and he mentioned that it should be LGPL v2.1. If he doesn't add the license text himself in the next couple of days, I'll submit my own patch to upstream to do that. That being said, I'm confident that this is LGPLv2.1, it just needs to be made explicit. So if someone wants to do the rest of the review, we can get that part out of the way and then have it ready to go once the license terms are in the upstream repository. Chris Lalancette -- 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