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=702989 Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #7 from Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-26 17:00:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says > "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without > restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License > say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a > semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL > with exceptions. It said under the terms of your choosing, and leaving the spec License field at GPLv3+ would comply. If you wanted to change the spec file to reflect that, it's probably "GPLv3+ and Copyright Only" but I'm not entirely sure that this is a) correct and b) necessary. Redirecting to spot and FE-Legal for the definitive answer, though. -- 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