https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail | |.com) --- Comment #11 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #9) > I believe we should be able to just state that: > > License: LGPLv2 OK, that's indeed clear from the licensing FAQ. It's less clear from the licensing guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios which is why I got confused. Guess it's better for me to learn this in my first review than later on! > Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way? I didn't; I got three-clause confused with four-clause. > If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't think we > need to do this. Yup. > It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I missing > something? Yes, it's clearly there. I did check the spec to make sure it was missing, but I must have been very blind. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) > Does libwebkit2gtkinjectedbundle.so need to be provided? Good point. I was not sufficiently familiar with the rules for filtering provides. It does need to be filtered; applications do not link to it directly. So this and ANGLE are the only actual problems. -- 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