https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356048 --- Comment #16 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #12) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > > > > Why it should provide its own license file? The docs are licensing under the > > same license as the main package and it's dependent on the main package, > > from the doc: > > > > > Both this document and the RLTSDR Scanner is licensed under the GNU General > > > Public License version 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). > > > > According to [1]: > > > If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base > > > package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from the > > > same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as %license), > > > it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license > > > texts as %license. > > Ah sorry, I didn't seen the dependency. But does it really need main package? > %package doc Summary: Documentation files for rtlsdr-scanner Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch Requires is the explicit dependency, i.e. you cannot install the doc subpackage without the main package. > > > > Well, I have now a dilemma, whether the resulting license is GPLv3 or GPLv3+ > > as stated on the different place of the sources. I took the documentation as > > more authoritative source and fixed the resulting license to be GPLv3, but I > > will query upstream about their intention. > > > > [1] > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > > They should not be dependent among them and should have different License > tags in any case. > What? There is clearly written that both are licensed under one (i.e. the same) license. The question is whether it is GPLv3 or GPLv3+, I bet it's only typo (or copy and paste error ) or upstream just didn't think about the nuance of v3 vs v3+. From the data available you *cannot* deduce that the doc is licensed under GPLv3 and the code under GPLv3+. > - Does not work for me: > > $ rtlsdr_scan > Import error: No module named rtlsdrtcp > > Error importing libraries > Press [Return] to exit You need python2-pyrtlsdr package from testing, namely: python-pyrtlsdr-0.2.2-6.fc25 -- 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