https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771 Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, all looks well now. Regarding the LICENSE file, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines: "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 must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake." And: "However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. It is worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however, Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the fact that if the upstream disagrees with what we have distributed as the full license text, they can easily remedy this by making full license text available in the source code. Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager. Packagers should also take copies of license texts from reliable and canonical sources (such as the Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF licenses page, or the OSI license list), whenever possible. Choose not to package that software for Fedora." This suggests that there hasn't have to be a LICENSE file included in the source, and that you *are* allowed to add one in some cases. I didn't find any mention of license anywhere in the code, apart from includes and code taken from other sources. I think it would be OK to add a LICENSE file to the package, but I leave the decision to the packager. APPROVING. -- 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