https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 --- Comment #6 from David King <amigadave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > 2. License problem is not a problem actually, it's a typo. > > Quoted from upstream reply: > > "Hi > > I have substituted src/clew.cpp file with the file which contains following > header: > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > // Copyright (c) 2009 Organic Vectory B.V. > // Written by George van Venrooij > // > // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. > // (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at > // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > It links now to the license file witch is on boost.org website > > Actual source package is here: > https://sourceforge.net/projects/mandelbulber/files/mandelbulber1.21-1.orig. > tar.gz/download > > Best regards > Krzysztof" > > Upstream had updated the source file since he received the report from me. The Boost license requires that the license text is supplied with the source code (as you can see if you read the license in full, specifically the second paragraph). According to the Fedora licensing guidelines, if such a license is used, the license must either be included in the upstream tarball, or supplied as a separate source file and included in %doc: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Directing to a URL for the Boost license is not sufficient. It must be included, and so the upstream change is insufficient. -- 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