https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The "COPYING" file contains multiple licenses, are you sure a simple "MIT" license is enough?
The licenses are MIT or BSD-style without clauses. I also added GPLv2+ because of the int64 patch actually adapts code from libgcc.
Why the GPLv2+ here? This is in the patch: +/* based on code based on libgcc (that is GPLv3) + * version here doesn't return the result or MINSLONG if overflow + */
wouldn't that make it to GPLv3??
Please elaborate a bit more on that.
realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
(In reply to comment #13)
Please correct the license, "BSD-like" is not a valide License tag
Which would be the right one, Simone?
Also missing: "Which file is under which license" comment in the spec file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensi...
Don't import this package till the licensing is completely clear!