https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > MIT. > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > a bit inconsistent to me. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > validators/licensecheck.txt Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about it. The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall be' to do it). For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our guidelines. > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional Python guidelines… -- 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
