https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853252 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #6) > Issues: > > 1. The license is only visible because of the LICENSE/gpl-3.0.txt files, no > headers are visible in the files indicating their license. > There are a lot of packages which ship the license file only, and don't have any license headers in the source files. > 2. I would prefer to call the license file COPYING, as is the standard. I'm > not sure about the symlink, it seems very strange to me. > Admittedly, the symlink is somewhat unusual. But it works. LICENSE points to the right file. Perhaps we could clarify the situation by renaming LICENSE to LICENSE-GPLv3+. BTW, there's no standard about the license file naming, we have LICENSE, COPYING, LEGAL and some more. In many cases, we even don't have any license file and have to pick up the license from file headers, websites etc. -- 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