https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231427
--- Comment #18 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #16)
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14)
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: ...
Fixed.
licensecheck still lists several files that are not Artistic 2.0 or GPLv2+.
Updated; please, read comment above License tag.
I'm definitely not a license expert and so please pardon me continuing to check on this issue. I read the license guidelines ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licens... ) and FAQ ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations ) and I believe that you need to list GPLv2 and GPLv3. I'm not positive that that's required but I know that you will for sure be in compliance with the requirements listed on that page.
Also, I personally would feel more comfortable if the files that are under different licenses that are unused were removed as part of %setup so it could be 100% certain that they are not part of the generated/packaged files, but I didn't see anything about that in the guidelines, so I'll leave that up to you.