https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047604 --- Comment #10 from Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I'm an amateur license nerd. Really, it's fine. I wouldn't say the guidelines are 'ambiguous', I'd just say they're maybe a bit hard to read. But if you follow the logic... First paragraph starts with an 'if' clause: "If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file" Ours doesn't. So we can completely disregard this paragraph. That's not a showstopper, though, the statement is not yet terminated. The following paragraph comes with an implied 'elseif' ;) The rest of the opening of that following paragraph reads: "In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, anywhere)" We're not in one of *those* cases either. If you read it carefully this paragraph has an implied converse: "cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires a copy of the license text...and does provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree or somewhere)". That's the case we're in. Upstream has chosen a license that requires a copy of the license text, and provided one. The license text being in line with the source is the strongest possible association you can have between license and source. Also providing a copy as a separate file is entirely redundant. -- 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