https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005796 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > > Issues: > > 1. Please do not add a license file which is not upstream. It is enough to > > ask upstream to include it. > > > reported @ http://code.google.com/p/language-detection/issues/detail?id=57 > usually we must add license txt file if this one is missing The guidelines say: It is important to reiterate that in situations where the indicated license does not imply a requirement that the license be distributed along with the source/binaries, Fedora packagers are NOT required to manually include the full license text when it is absent from the source code. but are still encouraged to point out this issue to upstream and encourage them to remedy it. ... I took this to mean that the license file should *not* be included, but I guess it is allowed, just not required. So you're fine. > > 2. After the license is added, I'd make langdetect-javadoc co-own > > /usr/share/doc/langdetect/LICENSE-2.0.txt to avoid the extra directory with > > one file. The first part of the sentence was made in light of 1., so let me amend it to: 2. I'd make langdetect-javadoc co-own /usr/share/doc/langdetect/LICENSE-2.0.txt to avoid the extra directory with one file. -- 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