https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280050
--- Comment #9 from Paul Pfeister <[email protected]> --- Heard. I was (initially) relying on this section from the docs: > However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive [...] and the indicated > license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers > must either: > > Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as > part of the Fedora package in %license, in order to remain in compliance. taking into account the original author's radio silence as well. I do see that the text itself isn't included here, though, and %license doesn't expand into anything, which wouldn't technically satisfy the requirement. This was the first package of the bunch and it had a good few issues. Those have been somewhat worked out with through repetition on the other packages and via some good feedback. I could fix this package but I may now opt out due to the earlier discussed concerns. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280050 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202280050%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
