http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740
--- Comment #19 from Andrea Musuruane <[email protected]> 2010-12-08 08:54:25 --- (In reply to comment #18) > > > 1. meka.i686: W: invalid-license Distributable > > > Fedora doesn't accept "Distributable" as a license any more. > > > The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* > > RPM: > > True. The unused parts of the source package should not be included in the > license field. > > But as I have understood it, one problem with "distributable" is that it is > too > vague. Maybe I have read in more than there is. But for me a license > description like "Meka and non-commercial" or "BSD-like and non-commercial" > would give me much more information than simply "distributable". I can't see any advantage in labelling the License as "Meka" or "BSD-like" (even though I prefer the former) over Distributable because it is a custom license anyway and the user will have to read the sources.txt file to understand the terms. I agree with you for adding the "and non-commercial" part. Anyway, this is really up to you. You are the reviewer and I have to follow your suggestions to pass the review. So please choose what you think it's the best and I'll do it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
