https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #3)
Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name?
It's entirely possible in the future that transactional-update will become a binary package if the stuff is adapted for non-SUSE distributions. For now, I'd like to leave this as-is.
Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please raise the issue upstream.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field
I definitely will talk to upstream about this to clarify it, but I'll go ahead an update it to match the COPYING file.