https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #3 from Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com> ---
Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of
the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when
there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files
section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make
more sense to use tukit as the top level package name?
Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+".
If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please
raise the issue upstream.
[0]
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