Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457924 --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-10 06:24:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > This package needs a license review, I think. > > You have License: LGPLv2, but the source files all seem to be either LGPLv2+ or > GPLv2+ (grep for "GNU Lesser" and "GNU General" and note the "any later > version" language present in all files). However, I don't know if any of the > GPLv2+ stuff ends up on the final binary; it seems to be test-related. You > will need to check that; if that's the case, then the final product is GPLv2+; > otherwise I think it would be LGPLv2+ unless some other license is involved. The website of this project says the license is LGPL. This is confirmed in a mailing list posting ( http://crisp.cs.du.edu/pipermail/libmicrohttpd/2007/000001.html ) and a bugreport ( https://gnunet.org/mantis/view.php?id=1384 ). In the Subversion repository of this project, everything is already changed to LGPLv2+. I'll change the License tag to LGPLv2+ in the spec file > rpmlint says: > libmicrohttpd.x86_64: W: no-documentation > Actually the COPYING file should be in the main package, and this will go away > when that's fixed. (Eliminating this complaint isn't the reason for moving the > COPYING file; we just want the license information in the package that people > will be installing.) Fixed by moving the COPYING file to the main package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review