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=727152
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-09-19 04:52:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: ASL 2.0
This part seems to be incorrect. I believe under Fedora guidelines the License field in the package spec file (currently "LGPLv2+") should be "LGPLv2+ and ASL 1.1".
Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a template and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that taken into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license.