https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364345
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > It looks like you patched the license file correctly, but now that upstream > has responded to your PR, it would probably be better to patch in what was > actually merged, > https://github.com/FineFindus/udisks-rs/commit/ > 6359a37560f3bbeaab2b8d79ddec245cad9ec08b. In https://github.com/FineFindus/udisks-rs/commit/6359a37560f3bbeaab2b8d79ddec245cad9ec08b, upstream corrected the license to LGPL-2.0-or-later, not LGPL-2.1-or-later, and patched the LICENSE file to be the LGPL 2.0 text. Upstream explicitly reported that this is consistent with udisks2 licensing and that LGPL-2.0-or-later is their intent. This is also consistent with “either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version” in the XML file. The latest submission still corresponds to the PR, not to what upstream actually committed. Could you please set License to LGPL-2.0-or-later instead of LGPL-2.1-or-later, and apply the same LICENSE-file patch that upstream did, since it seems clear that the LGPL-2.1 metadata was an error? -- 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=2364345 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202364345%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
