[Bug 1343161] Review Request: cryptacular - Java Library that complement to the Bouncy Castle crypto API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343161



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues
> ------
> - Dual licensed packages should have "or" as an separator and there
>   should be comment about the dual licensing. See
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios

Done

>   And the notice doesn't specify LGPL version, so I think it should have
>   LGPLv2+ istead of LGPLv2

in the main POM file is specified LGPLv3 and also the file LICENSE-lgpl

> [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.
Really needed?

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]