--- Comment #15 from John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com> ---
Thank you for taking time to review my package submission.
I reviewed the licensing page on the Fedora project wiki
). My inclination
is to heed what is stated in the paragraph in the section titled "License
Clarification". In particular, it states; "A copy of the email, containing full
headers, must be included as a source file (marked as %license) in the
The LICENSE file I created for the latest package is just a copy of what was on
the website that suggest the intended license is Public Domain. I propose to;
1) Add the emails I got from Argonne National Lab to the exisiting LICENSE
file, 2) Move the LICENSE filename from the %doc tag to %license as that is now
the accepted practice.
On the other hand, the output of Fedora review states; "If (and only if) the
source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that
file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in
My inclination is to proceed with the former and include the augmented LICENSE
file for clarification. Your thoughts?
P.S. Will also add a %check section that runs some of the provided examples...
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