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=691195 --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-03-27 14:06:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > I'm in doubt if this is a real project homepage. I'm not sure either, but the name Katharine Osborne is also mentioned in the manpage (as the manpage author) together with her email address. > The contact links are dead, I don't expect to find a responsible developer > anywhere. As I already wrote, we should use GPLv2 here, due to the age of the > sources. Or should we keep GPL in general, without versioning? The License field must contain the license of the binary package. If no GPL version is given, "GPL+" must be used (I forgot the "+" above). As you removed the bundled getopt sources, getopt_long() is taken from the shared glibc library. Thus, the resulting license of the package is indeed GPL+. If getopt were linked statically, we would get GPLv2+. -- 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