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=708970 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová <mmasl...@redhat.com> 2011-05-31 06:59:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > - license field must match actual license ? > > I found LGPL without version. > > See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if > somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+. > There is no LGPL short name listed. > Ok. > > - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ? > > You should add LGPL statement into doc. > > What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I > may request that file from upstream. License must be included in every package. Details about sub-packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing -- 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
