https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #5 from Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney@xxxxxxxx> --- Legal has determined this package is just the LGPLv2+ (the additional language is apparently less strict than the language of the LGPL, so the LGPL would take precedence anyway), so that is the license identifier to use. > But only a new automake run and release will make the distribution tarball contain the file. Should I simply ship the file as an additional "source" for now? Yes, you can just ship the LICENSE_LGPL as a new source: line and do the install that way, and you should probably leave a comment/link to the upstream PR noting that it can be removed after the next version is released and the in-tree version could be used. > I have the spec file for 1.4.0-2 pending (unless you prefer to accumulate everything into 1.4.0-1, which is fine for me). Please update it into a -2 spec and post it again. I think it will be good to go after that one. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 _______________________________________________ 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
