https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #18 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- (libs. > > > > Generic: > > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > Guidelines. > > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with > > incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)", > > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have > > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck. > > txt > > > > ---> > > > > Licenses: I think we should trust exciting about the license. It is a common > case > for scientific codes that they include files licensed under various > GPL-compatible > licenses, and as far as I know GPL eats them all. See discussion here > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893 > > My bad! This is my copy-pasting the unupdated version of my review file. I went through the files listed in licensecheck (~80% of files) and found no problems. I have no issues with this. -- 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