https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #47 from Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Updated package files: Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji results from same: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5835349 (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #44) I've fixed up all the warnings reported by rpmlint except for the spelling errors. At least, the spelling errors are all it reports to me anymore :). The licensing file I'll touch on below. I've submitted a possible patch to upstream for a LICENSE file clarifying things. We'll see how that goes. (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #45) > > The source is being licensed under the GPLv2 (and upstream is pretty > > religious about including the right text in all of the source files). > > > > Is it necessary to include a copy of GPLv2? I can, but it seems redundant. > > Amusingly "licensecheck --recursive" doesn't properly pick up the GPLv2 > license header in any of the source files. > > So while all appear to be GPLv2 there's some in generate/unix/iasl/obj/ that > are GPLv3+ so it's possible that at least some binaries are licensed > differently. All of the files in generate/unix/iasl/obj are generated files. The ones noted as GPLv3 are all created during the build by bison. On reading those files, though, there is a special proviso for using them in non-GPLv3 programs that allows them to be treated as GPLv2 source files. The UNKNOWN entries are all part of AAPITS tests provided by upstream; per the ACPICA site (www.acpica.org), the FAQ says they can redistributed under the GPL and they are part of the test suite source code ACPICA (upstream) makes available. I am getting clarification, just to be sure. Worst case, we would have to take the test cases out of the %check portion of the package. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix > > I can't find explicitly where it says we need to include a licence/copying > file but in the subpackaging it states the details of it. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing Right. I've submitted a patch upstream to clarify; if they accept it, there will be a separate LICENSE file available. -- 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=y5tyvpyHd2&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review