https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434744 Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) --- Comment #3 from Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lberk/src/fedora- > scm/review/review-uom-lib/licensecheck.txt > > All source file without license headers. Please ask to upstream to confirm > the licensing of code and/or content/s and to add license headers. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Hi, There is a clear license (BSD-3) in the package. Multiple files that are listed as "Unknown" by the fedora review tool have been inspected manually (as is required), and include the proper license (for example, the pom.xml lists the proper license despite be 'unknown' as well as the README.md). This is all already upstream and in the provided SRPM. Could you please provide clarification why you removed the fedora-review+ flag and what further information you need. AFAICT this conforms to fedora packaging guidelines, including the license clarification link you provided -- 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
