https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009446 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > - license breakdown should be documented Done. Updated package is on the same URL. > - license text should be shipped with the tarball, can you > contact upstream ? License is shipped with the archive. See README.txt: These tools are offered to the general public for any use without license. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND INFORMATICA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. INFORMATICA DOES NOT WARRANT THAT USE OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. INFORMATICA SHALL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE FOR LOST PROFITS, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR INDIRECT DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF INFORMATICA HAS BEEN APPRISED OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH DAMAGES. Other respective license texts (BSD) are quoted in each respective file. > - I do not see where is the gpl v3 code in the License tag Sorry. I had my own Makefile under GPLv3, but took it away, and forgot to remove the license name from the spec file. Also fixed. > in fact, the tarball do not correspond to the files on svn, where there is udp.c in gpl v3. LGPLv2+. However I do not package the upstream development tree. I package released ZIP archive which does not contain the file yet. Is it acceptable? -- 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