https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #23 from John Morris <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #22) > (In reply to John Morris from comment #21) > > > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file > > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > [...] > > > > [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Also: [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. > Ok, I'm not sure, am I supposed to do something here? Probably, but I just don't know what. :) The 'copying.lib' file, which serves as the package's license file, is incorrect (not LPGLv2+ since GPLv2+ code is included). It seems wrong to include that in the package as the license file. It also seems wrong to simply drop in a copy of GPLv2+ on our own. Maybe upstream should be queried about it, with the hope of getting them to clarify the status of the software and even commit a new license file in the dev trees that we can 'backport'. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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