https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356048 --- Comment #18 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #16) > > (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. > > Yes, I understand but why? :) Sorry, are you joking or what? > > > > > > > > > > > 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+. > > In fact, from PDF file: > > License > Both this document and the RLTSDR Scanner is licensed under the GNU General > Public License > version 3 > > But readme.rd disagrees. > How is this different from what I wrote earlier? -- 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