https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975704 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > So this line should be dropped. Damned... missed these during cleanup for Fedora review... (original spec file own them as I used a different _prefix) Fixed in https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/libmemcached-last.git/commit/?h=fedora&id=3f50fe823c15986e6d2cba009127d4d9954acb2b Spec and SRPM re-uploaded. > Apart from the outdated reference to MIT, this supports the conclusion that spec files > are under CC-BY-SA-4.0 currently. from FPCA ==> (either MIT for software or CC BY-SA for content). btw, some consider spec as code, other (like me) as content / documentation. > OK. I think the license header is superfluous, but it's certainly allowed, and if you want to keep it, > that fine. Yes, I want, as I said it is not superfluous when spec used outside Fedora. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
