https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804 --- Comment #10 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #8) > > Ok, I have updated the license tag to: > > > > License: GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ > > > > I admit licenses are not my strong suit so does this look correct? > > > > It's correct. > > xmlrpc issue (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817#c3) is > valid for flamp, too. Per a recently revived devel mail about this, it doesn't look to be against the guidelines. If he was bundling stock or near-stock xmlrpcpp then it would be an issue, but as it's effectively a fork (and upstream is dead), it's not a violation of the guidelines. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/199059.html -- 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