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=469527 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 18:21:15 EDT --- This code seems to be confused about how it is licensed. Note that the LICENSE file contains the LGPL (v2) but the code itself says: * This code may be freely redistributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License. and this agrees with the README: This software may be freely distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). No version is specified anywhere, so GPL+ would seem to apply. Can you clarify with upstream? I'm inclined to say it's best to simply pretend that LICENSE file is not there at all. The guidelines say that the text of the license(s) must be included if its there at all, but this isn't the text of the code's license, it's some other license. This also suffers from the compiler flags problem; easily fixed by changing the make line to: make CCFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags} -- 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