https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434744
Lukas Berk <lberk(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(puntogil(a)libero.i
| |t)
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Berk <lberk(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lberk/src/fedora-
scm/review/review-uom-lib/licensecheck.txt
All source file without license headers. Please ask to upstream to confirm
the licensing of code and/or content/s and to add license headers.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
Hi,
There is a clear license (BSD-3) in the package. Multiple files that are
listed as "Unknown" by the fedora review tool have been inspected manually (as
is required), and include the proper license (for example, the pom.xml lists
the proper license despite be 'unknown' as well as the README.md). This is all
already upstream and in the provided SRPM.
Could you please provide clarification why you removed the fedora-review+ flag
and what further information you need. AFAICT this conforms to fedora
packaging guidelines, including the license clarification link you provided
--
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