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=680657 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> 2011-03-13 16:27:54 EDT --- Well, the first barrier here is that, as is often the case when you have one piece of code with an odd license, this is a bundled library. Is this one of the md5 libraries we've already approved for bundling? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries If so you'll at minimum need to add the Provides: bundled(md5-whatever) bit. If not, FPC will need to review the situation. As for the license issue, of course the license of the actual files present in the binary package are significant (as told in the URLs I've already provided). If it is not obvious how the licenses combine, you will need to get an opinion from the legal folks. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
