https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- I certainly understand that. What I've got so far is [1]. Do you think this is clear enough (it could certainly be more clear...) ? A sidenote: in their forum I have a thread [2] with a manual recipe how to build a rpm using the spec + some CLI magic. This thread is well-known and obviously accepted. The lpf package basically just automates this recipe, which in my (non-lawyer) eyes seems like more or less the same thing from a law perspective. (?) --alec PS: Sorry, I'm no native English speaker. It becomes just so embarrassing clear when trying to discuss legal stuff "blushes" [1]: http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/What-license-does-the-linux-spotify-client-use/td-p/17335[ [2]: http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/Linux-Fedora-RPM-package-for-F17-F18/m-p/191612#M8425 -- 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=WVey6QgyNG&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review