Bug 490171

GPL is indeed not specific enough; you need to indicate the version of the GPL in use.  You need to look at the code for the license blocks which specify the GPL version.  If those don't exist, the COPYING file is explicit:

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
  later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
  either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
  Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
  this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
  Foundation.

so the license tag would be "GPL+".  In this case, you should also communicate with upstream to get them to include proper license blocks in the code or to otherwise clarify their intent.

> so the license tag would be "GPL+". 

Thanks for the guidance.  I've updated the .spec and src.rpm (same URL's as noted in comment#0).  I'll reach out to upstream for clarification on which version of the GPL we must abide by.

After consulting Paul Frields, it was recommended that the fedora package specify "GPLv2 and CC-BY" as the license.  I've discussed this with upstream to keep Yaron (upstream maintainer) informed.

I've updated the spec and src.rpm URLs noted in comment#0.  The updated src and noarch packages now pass rpmlint.

Please note that if you wish to indicate a license which differs from the license indicated by the code itself, you must include some kind of statement from the copyright holder indicating that the license tag you've chosen properly represents their wishes.  It's permissible to include an email from them, or to point to a statement on an upstream web site if you reasonably believe is authored by the code's copyright holder, but it doesn't suffice to just change the License: tag.  I can't see anything at all in the code which would indicate that GPLv2 only is correct, so you must have corresponded with upstream about it.  Just drop that email into another source file and install it as %doc.

Also, the spec needs to indicate which files in the package are under which license.  See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios for more information.

Finally, please bump the release each time you change your package.

So, it's been three months with no response.  Did you wish to continue with this package?  I'll go ahead and close this ticket soon if there's no further progress.

Hold off for closing for a bit please.  

Fedora QA is going through a proof-of-concept with the help of fedora-infrastructure to evaluate whether mediawiki + semantic is a good short-term solution for managing test content on the wiki.  Based on this evaluation, I will either close this request or address your concerns in comment#4 and seek approval.

Thanks!  Stay tuned.

Please clear the whiteboard if you would like this to be reviewed.

Still no progress in half a year; can we go ahead and close this out now?

(In reply to comment #8)
> Still no progress in half a year; can we go ahead and close this out now?    

Yeah let's close it.  If this comes back as a summer project, we'll just reopen the bug and pick up where things left off.