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=708970
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> 2011-05-31 06:27:23 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
- license field must match actual license ?
I found LGPL without version.
See the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if
somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+.
There is no LGPL short name listed.
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ?
You should add LGPL statement into doc.
What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I
may request that file from upstream.
--
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.