--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
No, I have not had any response from upstream. Can we proceed
license file, since that is a SHOULD and not a MUST?
From Licensing guidelines
However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to
provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated
license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must
Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as
part of the Fedora package in %license, in order to remain in compliance. It is
worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however,
Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the fact that if the upstream
disagrees with what we have distributed as the full license text, they can
easily remedy this by making full license text available in the source code.
Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all
attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the
source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the
upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager. Packagers should also
take copies of license texts from reliable and canonical sources (such as the
Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF licenses page, or the OSI license list),
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