Hi Sandro, Thanks for the bugreport, and thanks a lot for packaging licensecheck for Fedora - moving it to CPAN was done *exactly* to ease redistribution also outside of Debian :-D
Comments below the quote... Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-05 09:24:31) > Package: licensecheck > Version: 3.0.1 > > The following issue was raised during review of the Fedora package [1]: > > These source files are without license headers: > App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck > App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the > licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > > > COPYRIGHT states clearly that bin/licensecheck and lib/App/Licensecheck.pm > are GPL-3.0, but it would not harm to add license headers also? > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667#c5 The issue you raise here puzzles me, however: What licensing information more specifically do you (or others in Fedora) believe is missing from those three files? Is it perhaps that you/they feel that licensing statements in a _header_ comment are somehow superior to statements embedded in POD (commonly placed near the bottom for Perl modules)? NB! Please beware that license scanners - both licensecheck and (it seems, but I am only guessing) rpmlint - can be only advisory, and if in doubt you should read the actual code yourself. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
