https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349604 Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. |needinfo?(olysonek@redhat.c |com) |om) --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ondřej Lysoněk from comment #4) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > - 'If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > > must be documented in the spec.' > > upstream writes what is licensed under what, so don't see problem here > > Well, I'm just (blindly) following the guidelines here and it says that > there should be some note about this in the spec. For example, they suggest: > > [quote] > Including a file as %license which contains the licensing breakdown for the > packaged files, then using: > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING > [end quote] > > So just add a reference to the LICENSE file to the spec above the License: > field and we're good here. well, I can do that during import. not going to spend time to fix dummy issue while review. Any blockers? Where's fedora-review+? -- 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