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=464432 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2008-10-02 05:00:03 EDT --- > external_libs/expokit is non-free and must be removed from distributed sources > unless you can convince its authors to relicense it under a free license. > > external_libs/metis-4.0 is non-free. > > external_libs/qshep is non-free as well. Oh my, you are right. This is a showstopper. I'm contacting upstream to see whether they have any plans to migrate to free implementations. Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files? > - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > License: GPLv2+ > Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ > sources are "upgraded" to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website. You'd think the developers had their licenses right.. > SRPM source file doesn't match upstream: > 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz > e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad. -- 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