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=702989
Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> 2011-05-26 17:00:23 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file
basically says
"GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without
restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License
say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a
semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL
with exceptions.
It said under the terms of your choosing, and leaving the spec License field at
GPLv3+ would comply. If you wanted to change the spec file to reflect that,
it's probably "GPLv3+ and Copyright Only" but I'm not entirely sure that
this
is a) correct and b) necessary.
Redirecting to spot and FE-Legal for the definitive answer, though.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.