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=652623 --- Comment #10 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio@xxxxxx> 2011-07-19 13:00:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > I don't think that we need an explicit licensing information for > include/bitcask.hrl as it might be considered as a derivative work from files > in src/ directory (thus inheriting all their legal information). Unfortunately > (or fortunately) IANAL. Ping? I could accept this file without the license headers, but maybe we could get a confirmation about the license from the upstream developers first. If the files in the doc/ directory still have no licenses, they would need to be dropped from the package. -- 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