Dne 21. 03. 21 v 11:52 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:47:17AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I am doing my first Fedora package review , for litehtml library.
> The source tree contains some bundled items that, in violation of
> original licenses, do not include a copy of the relevant licenses.
> There are two problem items:
> 1. gumbo-parser is included in source form and only contains link to
> the correct license in source files and repository README, but
> license text itself is not included like the license, Apache
> Software License 2.0, demands.
This one is easy to fix: just include the license file as another
Source. It'll then be part of the srpm, even though it's not part of
the Source0 tarball. Since the upstream *links* to a license, there
is no risk of confusion about the text, you can even use this exact
URL for the Source line…
Just FTR, including license file as SOURCE have always been wrong
suggestion, because the review guidelines  states the following:
MUST: 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 must be included in %license.
Please note that the guidelines also say that the packager MUST
contact upstream and ask them to fix the issue .
And this is just SHOULD:
SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it. 
Granted, the licensing guidelines you are referring to might be