https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112
--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser <[email protected]> 2016-07-08 22:44:18 CEST --- > - rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0/bin/rfpkg is licensed under GPLv3+ > LICENSE file is GPLv2 ?? That's exciting. This is an issue inherited from fedpkg-minimal that I didn't notice... take a look at: * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/LICENSE * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg The fedpkg-minimal spec claims the version is "GPLv2+". https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fedpkg-minimal/sources/ I have filed https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg-minimal/ticket/2 asking for clarification. In the mean time, should we block on a response to that ticket or assume GPLv2+ for now? > We might end up with more than free and nonfree namespaces in the future, so > it would be better to be able to "read" which namespace it is. > The logic to try to dl from different namespace is good. Good to know; I agree that this would be better than hardcoding a list of the namespaces in the script. I'll see if I can implement some better string parsing in bash when I get a chance. > It would be fine not to conflict with rfpkg in order to debug rfpkg-minimal > in parallel, I will tune koji to use rfpkg-minimal instead of rfpkg once > introduced. > So you can rename your fork script to rfpkg-minimal directly. Sounds good, I'll fix that (and deal with the licensing problem) and upload a new version of the script and package. > Do you have a github account, so you can use > https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rfpkg-minimal instead ? I do; my github username is TC01 (https://github.com/TC01). Should I fork that repository, push my commit history, and open a pull request? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
