Created attachment 998716 [details]
spec

Description of problem:
I run fedora review on attached spec file. The COPYRIGHT is included in -license sub-package and the %license macro is used instead of %doc. If any of the final RPMs is installed, it pulls the -license subpackage, so license is always installed. fedora-review reports that the COPYRIGHT is missing and that the %doc macro should be used.

Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines %license macro should be used.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fedora-review-0.5.2-2.fc21.noarch

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
The review.txt contains:

Issues:
=======
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
  its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
  package is included in %doc.
  Note: Cannot find COPYRIGHT in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


Expected results:
The COPYRIGHT with %license macro should be correctly detected.

Additional info:
I may be wrong on interpreting the fedora-review reported issue