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=708970
--- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-05-31 06:59:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
- license field must match actual license ?
I found LGPL without version.
See the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and you will find that if somebody states LGPL, it means actually LGPLv2+ and the short name is LGPLv2+. There is no LGPL short name listed.
Ok.
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc ?
You should add LGPL statement into doc.
What is meant by that? I have no license file, so I have nothing to include. I may request that file from upstream.
License must be included in every package. Details about sub-packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licen...