https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531955 --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #3) > At a glance, here are bundling issues. The library > util/py_lib/seqan/dox/tpl/lib includes several bundled libraries whih needs > to be dealt with. In particular, shouldn't the bundled font be unbundled > even under current, somewhat relaxed rules? It's a false problem. Those files are not involved during the compilation neither packed in the binary rpms. > > Also the license situation is somewhat more complicated than what could be > expressed in a few comments. I suggest that you run fedora-review and use > the license-check.txt file created, review it and use it as license > clarification. > > This is just some initial findings. seqan2 is quite a large package, and I > expect there is more. Please take a stab at this for now. Many apps are released under BSD, others under LGPv3+ and GPLv3+. These licenses are compatible among them, therefore the resultant binary rpm can be licensed under a single collective license (GPLv3+). Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/seqan2.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/seqan2-2.3.2-3.20180103git8a875d.fc27.src.rpm -- 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
