Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-05-26 17:00:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL with exceptions.
It said under the terms of your choosing, and leaving the spec License field at GPLv3+ would comply. If you wanted to change the spec file to reflect that, it's probably "GPLv3+ and Copyright Only" but I'm not entirely sure that this is a) correct and b) necessary.
Redirecting to spot and FE-Legal for the definitive answer, though.