https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210 --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- License discussion continued. Why license CC-BY-SA for the doc subpackage? I can not validate because I don't find any file from upstream that says so. Still not fixed as in comment #4: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1354210-xviewer/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. => Add MIT to license tag and a comment about license breakdown. I'll attach full licensetext.txt content. -- 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