Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917330 --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) [cut] > > > - I can't find any copyright notice in this. Shouldn't the license be > > Public Domain? > > The license I see is: "You may freely use this code in any way you can think > of." Which, while quite permissive, does not say "this code is released into > the public domain." So I think "copyright only" with basically unlimited > license is more accurate than Public Domain. At a second thought you're right. Agreed. > > ===== MUST items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > > "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > > licensecheck in /home/mk/FedoraReview/917330-python- > > rsslib/licensecheck.txt > > Sorry, what's the issue here? Already handled above, sorry for clumsy writing. Forget it ;) [cut] > > New spec, SRPM. Bumped to 0-2.20130310, fixed BR on python2-devel, removed > python_sitelib macro: > > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec Old spec file?! > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-rsslib-0-2.20130310.fc17. > src.rpm New spec file bundled in srpm is OK > Thanks for the review! Your're welcome! A last remark: You can simplify the spec even further using the upcoming patch which evolved after writing the review. Use it if you want, no review remark as such. ***Approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jhaWWZLkUX&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review