--- Comment #19 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> 2010-12-08 08:54:25 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > 1. meka.i686: W: invalid-license Distributable
> > Fedora doesn't accept "Distributable" as a license any more.
> The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* RPM:
True. The unused parts of the source package should not be included in the
But as I have understood it, one problem with "distributable" is that it is
vague. Maybe I have read in more than there is. But for me a license
description like "Meka and non-commercial" or "BSD-like and
would give me much more information than simply "distributable".
I can't see any advantage in labelling the License as "Meka" or
(even though I prefer the former) over Distributable because it is a custom
license anyway and the user will have to read the sources.txt file to
understand the terms.
I agree with you for adding the "and non-commercial" part.
Anyway, this is really up to you. You are the reviewer and I have to follow
your suggestions to pass the review. So please choose what you think it's the
best and I'll do it.
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.