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=727152
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej <tradej(a)redhat.com> 2011-09-19 04:52:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
> [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
> legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines[3,4].
> [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> License type: ASL 2.0
This part seems to be incorrect. I believe under Fedora guidelines the License
field in the package spec file (currently "LGPLv2+") should be
"LGPLv2+ and ASL 1.1".
Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a template
and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that taken
into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license.
--
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.