[Bug 1024885] Review Request: python-openstackclient - OpenStack Command-line Client

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024885

Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(kchamart@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)



--- Comment #16 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Manual review in progress, meanwhile a quick comment:

For the below MUST item, looking inside setup.py file 

     License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1024885-python-
     openstackclient/licensecheck.txt


Unknown or generated
--------------------
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/doc/source/conf.py
  - [ This is generated by sphinx-quickstart]
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/run_tests.sh
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/setup.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/tools/with_venv.sh


But. . . looking inside setup.py file, it /does/ have ASL 2.0 lincense:

===
$ head -10
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/setup.py
#!/usr/bin/env python
# Copyright (c) 2013 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
#
# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
# You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
#    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
===

Why would the review tool flag this as /not/ having an unknown license?

Is this a legal question?

-- 
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]