https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- Progress, indeed. The bundling issues are resolved besides ccan. (The build-aux files can be shipped under the general autotools blanket). For ccan, we must wait for fpc. Things will also become easier once pcllib hits rawhide, but we can go around that for now. Next major task is the licenses. I will attach a new version of the licensecheck output. fedora-review tells us: Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in [attachment]. This is *not* as simple as GPLv2+. Furthermore, when looking into the unknown license files many (most?) are the ccan files. However, they all have a license (the scanning fails). Some are already existing licenses, some are "Public Domain". Also, the one who copied those files from ccan did not copy the LICENSE file. Each ccan module has a license file, and that file should be added to the package. You should also talk to upstream about this. A module contains a license file for a reason. Summing up: - Check all licenses in the package, try to understand the situation. - Write the new License: tag, something like (GPLv3+ and MIT and Public Domain...) - You will need to make a license break-down, and add that to the package.Use the attachment as a starting point. - Add all missing license files from ccan. License links: comment #5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review