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=706832 JaromÃr CÃpÃk <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from JaromÃr CÃpÃk <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-27 09:42:43 EDT --- Hi Marek. The problem is, that the mentioned link always points to the latest LGPL version (what could be at the moment understood as LGPLv3+ or not). Unfortunately the LGPLv3 doesn't seem to specify an exact statement and that's why it would be better to have a full license text included in the package to avoid confusions. Please, ask the upstream to include the license file in the source package. The following text is taken directly from the Licensing Guidelines: In cases where the licensing is unclear, it may be necessary to contact the copyright holders to confirm the licensing of code or content. In those situations, it is _always_ preferred to ask upstream to resolve the licensing confusion by documenting the licensing and releasing an updated tarball. However, this is not always possible to achieve. In such cases, it is acceptable to receive confirmation of licensing via email. A copy of the email, containing full headers, must be included as a source file (marked as %doc) in the package. This file is considered part of the license text. -- 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