https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 --- Comment #20 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I was able to run the review tool against that copr build. It pointed out that we have a complicated license situation, similar to qatlib. All licenses must be reflected in the License field, using the combined scenario guidelines [0]. Based on the output of the review tool's license check and the upstream description [1], I think this should cover it: License: BSD and OpenSSL and GPLv2 and (BSD or GPLv2) Additionally, all license files must be included in %files and marked as %license [2]. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_combined_dual_and_multiple_licensing_scenario [1] https://github.com/intel/QAT_Engine/blob/master/README.md#licensing [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text -- 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
