[Bug 659746] Review Request: dee - Model to synchronize multiple instances over DBus

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=659746

Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tcallawa at redhat.com

--- Comment #3 from Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> 2010-12-06 15:24:49 EST ---
"Just FYI, I don't think I can pass this through review until there is at least
a comment from upstream concerning the missing license headers."

I think we're generally okay to ship source which has no specific header but is
clearly marked with an acceptable license in other ways by upstream (dee is on
the project page, and by the inclusion of the license files in the tarball);
having a header on each specific source file is a 'nice-to-have', not a must.
But I'll CC spot to check this.

"It's not just the binary..we do distribute the srpm's as well and the
licensing tag has to make sense for both the srpm and the binary rpm."

No, it doesn't.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines

"The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* rpm.
When in doubt, ask."

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.