https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #3 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name? Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please raise the issue upstream. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field -- 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
