Spec URL: https://github.com/0xMRTT/extension-manager-rpm/blob/main/text-engine/text-engine.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/0xmrtt/extension-manager/fedora-36-x86_64/04755785-text-engine/text-engine-0.1.1-1.fc36.src.rpm COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/0xmrtt/extension-manager/package/text-engine/ Description: A lightweight rich text framework for GTK Fedora Account System Username: 0xmrtt Hi, It's my first package. I've checked fedora review tool and fixed issues. (Tell me if you find others). I need a sponsor. For creating this package, I was mentored by lyessaadi, he was very helpful. Thanks to him ! I'm also the upstream of gradience and working on the rpm for gradience. This package is the dependency of extension-manager (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120401) I hope you will review my request. Thanks
> Spec URL: https://github.com/0xMRTT/extension-manager-rpm/blob/main/text-engine/text-engine.spec This link points to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec file. Please use a "raw" / "plain" link instead. > License: LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MPL-2.0 The COPYING file states: > This library and all accompanying materials are made available under the > terms of the Mozilla Public License 2.0, or the Lesser General Public > License 2.1 (or any later version), at your option. So that would make this "LGPL-2.1-or-later or MPL-2.0". However, in the README, there's this bit: > Text Engine is dual-licensed under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 and the GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 (or any later version), at your option. Which says basically the same thing, but the words used are "MPL *and* LGPL", not "MPL *or* LGPL". It would be good to ask upstream to clear this up.
"dual-licensing" is usually parlance for "or" (disjunctive) rather than "and" (conjunctive) licensing. "double-license" is conjunctive (which OpenSSL used to use before moving to Apache-2.0).
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.