https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757379
--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Alessio from comment #4)
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #1)
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> ...
> - setup.py says MIT and the LICENSE file is MIT:
> ...
> - The pynetdicom/_version.py file says that some part of the code there is
> Apache and BSD.
So, what is the right license?
License: MIT and ASL 2.0 and BSD
No, MIT should be enough. The comment merely states that they've picked code
from projects that are ASL and BSD---the file itself is not ASL/BSD. You
could/should e-mail the -devel list to confirm :)
(In reply to Alessio from comment #5)
Another question.
Is it better to use the source stuff from pupi or from github?
As far as I can see, pypi stuff doesn't contain docs.
This is up to you and doesn't usually make too much of a difference. Using pypi
is easier, you can then use the %pypi_source macro, for example. Mostly,
upstream does not include docs in the pypi tar, though. Quite a few don't even
include tests in the pypi tar. So, in such scenarios, using the Github tar is
the only way.
--
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