https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #8) > Also, it's never OK to patch licenses. The bad FSF address is not considered > a blocker but it is recommended to at least tell upstream about it. You > might as well send them your patch. License files can't be patched, agreed. But license text in source can be patched, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address (OK, I actually wrote that :), but it's still kind of a reference) (In reply to comment #9) > Duh, I looked at your LICENSING file... never mind. But perhaps using the > guidelines version of the comment and file name would be good? > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING Sure, I can change it according to that. I read this as you hadn't noticed the break-down when you wrote comment #7 Holding updated links in wait for more remarks or conclusions. -- 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