https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 --- Comment #2 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > licensecheck picked up a couple of files with the NTP license: > icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.1: NTP License > icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.c: NTP License > icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.1: NTP License > icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.c: NTP License > icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/doc/COPYRIGHT: NTP License I asked Fedora Legal regarding the NTP license when reviewing another package and the text matches one of the MIT license variants so it's okay to put "MIT" in the License field for these files so kind of like this: > # xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.*: MIT licensed > # xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.*: MIT licensed > License: Public Domain and MIT > BuildRequires: libX11-devel > BuildRequires: libXt-devel Both of these provide pkgconfig files, hence one could/should use something like this instead: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(x11) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xt) Let me know if you need further help with improving the SPEC file :). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
