https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051157 --- Comment #4 from David King <amigadave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The MPLv2.0 in the tag should be fine, as it is the "effective" licence of the binary package and most restrictive license of the included files (and the one provided in the tarball): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F MPLv2 is nicer that the MPLv1.1, and automatically compatible with the LGPL and GPL unless the "Secondary Licences" exclusion is used (which it is not, in this case). The GPLv3+ and LGPL2+ files (1 of each licence) in the tarball are not included in the binary package, just used during testing and to create some Unicode data, so I do not think that anything other than MPLv2.0 is necessary. -- 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