https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues (non blocking): [!]: If (and only 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 is included in %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352666-perl-Pod- Constants/licensecheck.txt README file report "Perl Artistic License, version 2 or later, OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later." this should not be interpreted as: GPLv3+ or Artistic 2.0 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- 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