https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495
--- Comment #20 from Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com> ---
I was able to run the review tool against that copr build. It pointed out that
we have a complicated license situation, similar to qatlib. All licenses must
be reflected in the License field, using the combined scenario guidelines [0].
Based on the output of the review tool's license check and the upstream
description [1], I think this should cover it:
License: BSD and OpenSSL and GPLv2 and (BSD or GPLv2)
Additionally, all license files must be included in %files and marked as
%license [2].
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
[1]
https://github.com/intel/QAT_Engine/blob/master/README.md#licensing
[2]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component