>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause
Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT:
CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two
CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec
"GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly
into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled
into a binary with the GPL code. If the former, also include a
comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license.
CK> Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license?
It is only mandatory to include the license text in the package if it
is included within the upstream tarball.