https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188536 --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Yes, this is OK and I agree. I just think upstream should at least mention both licenses (rubygems.org shows only the MIT) and should be contacted about the confusion. But it is not show stopper for packaging nor review. And what do you think about using "MIT and GPLv2" in licensing field? (the core part is GPL and other parts probably must be covered by it anyway?) Otherwise it looks good, I couldn't find any issues. :-) -- 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