https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- As most of the sections from fedora-review do not apply, I am not going to include the text here - almost every relevant section is OK. Just a couple of things: 1. The default location for addons AppStream metadata has changed, see: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Addon.html I've just sent a message to devel about this. 2. I always get confused with the "foo or later" licenses, but according to the text in the script's header, shouldn't the license be GPLv2+? In both the spec file and the metainfo.xml you have GPLv3+ (and of course the license text is that of GPL3). In the case of "or later" licenses, can we use a newer version just by redistributing the source material, or is that reserved for when there are modifications to the code? By the way, does packaging count as modification or redistribution? These two are from the "SHOULD items" from fedora-review: [ ]: 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. Obviously, it is in your discretion how (and if) you are going to deal with them, I just feel I should point them out. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
