https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com> 2012-04-27 20:13:14 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
> Package review:
Thanks for the quick review, Jeremy!
No problem, if you have some time, you can return the favour :)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908
> -The license issue should be fixed, with a license breakdown and
all that.
Both BSD and LGPLv2+ are compatible with GPLv2+. So it is perfectly fine for
upstream to license the sources as GPLv2+.
Please see, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_compatibility
Sorry I didn't mean that there is a problem with the licenses, but merely that
all should be included in the spec like so:
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT
and a license breakdown should be included in the comments above or below it.
If you need an example, take a look at this spec:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.