https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > > The "COPYING" file contains multiple licenses, are you sure a simple "MIT" > > license is enough? > > The licenses are MIT or BSD-style without clauses. I also added > GPLv2+ because of the int64 patch actually adapts code from libgcc. Why the GPLv2+ here? This is in the patch: +/* based on code based on libgcc (that is GPLv3) + * version here doesn't return the result or MINSLONG if overflow + */ wouldn't that make it to GPLv3?? Please elaborate a bit more on that. realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses (In reply to comment #13) > Please correct the license, "BSD-like" is not a valide License tag Which would be the right one, Simone? Also missing: "Which file is under which license" comment in the spec file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Don't import this package till the licensing is completely clear! -- 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