[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[Bug 173105] Review Request: xfce4-battery-plugin
- From: bugzilla redhat com
- To: fedora-extras-list redhat com
- Subject: [Bug 173105] Review Request: xfce4-battery-plugin
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 04:29:25 -0500
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfce4-battery-plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173105
------- Additional Comments From pertusus free fr 2005-12-02 04:29 EST -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Then "License" field in the rpm spec imho should only be "LGPL" because it
> stands for the whole package. Otherwise someone might get the idea that the
> whole package is under a Dual-BSD/LGPL license. And thats wrong afaics.
Yep, that's true. It's in fact better to avoid people thinking that's it's dual
licencing. As there are the 2 licences in %doc, it should be enough to have
somebody interested get the srpm and look at the file headers.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]