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=757156 --- Comment #8 from Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-07 15:34:19 EST --- OK, here is the quoted discussion with the upstream package author. Lines prefixed with ">" are mine, and lines prefixed with ":" are written by the package author: : > : Personally, I don't really care which exact of the free-as-a-beer : > : license is used, GPL, Artistic XYZ, or whatever you'd like it to be. : > : > OK. So "the same terms as Perl itself" would be OK with you? : [...] : > So if you say "the same terms as Perl itself" or "Artistic 2.0" : > or "Artistic clarified" is OK with you, I would be able to package : > Env::C for Fedora. : : Yes, either of the above works. I doubt I'll release a new version of : the module just to tweak this, unless it's really important. Perhaps : you can just quote this communication as a proof. Is it sufficient to have it this way and keep License: Artistic 2.0 in the spec file? -- 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