Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
08.07.2010 00:29, Tom spot Callaway пишет: Hello Fedora! Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. Upon the advice of Red Hat Legal, we have slightly amended the Fedora Licensing Guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines). The following section has been added: Subpackage Licensing [snip] I check dnsjava and it at all have not license file in tarball and main package. In ImageMagick-doc LICENSE file added. Now I can't commit in CVS, I think it because I should use git now. When I understand how use it I'll do that. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 7/7/2010 4:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [orion] apache-commons-jexl: apache-commons-jexl-javadoc-2.0.1-1.fc14.noarch Added license to javadoc package [orion] BareBonesBrowserLaunch: BareBonesBrowserLaunch-javadoc-3.0-1.fc14.noarch Package is public domain and does not ship a license files, so there isn't one in the main package either. [orion] bes: bes-doc-3.7.2-3.fc12.x86_64 Added COPYING to bes-doc [orion] gifsicle: gifview-1.60-1.fc14.x86_64 Added license to gifview [orion] GMT: GMT-common-4.5.2-1.fc13.noarch Added license to GMT-common [orion] jericho-html: jericho-html-javadoc-3.1-3.fc14.noarch Added licenses to javadoc package [orion] libdap: libdap-doc-3.9.3-2.fc12.x86_64 Added licenses to doc subpackage [orion] plplot: plplot-libs-5.9.5-7.fc13.x86_64 Added licenses to plplot-libs. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Tuesday 27 July 2010, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 07/26/2010 07:25 PM, M A Young wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. I have commited a spec file that puts all the COPYING and LICENSE files into a new xen-licenses package (I don't what to include that many files twice). This is an excellent idea. Wouldn't it make sense to take it further and create a couple dozen packages for all major licenses (GPL 2, 3, BSD, MIT, Artistic, Apache etc etc) and specify the correct ones as dependencies of respective packages? I suppose the QA section in the original announcement is intended to cover this. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html | Q. Why can't we just have a fedora-licenses package which has copies | of all the licenses in Fedora and just always install it? | A. Maintaining that package would be a huge pain. We have a LOT of | licenses in Fedora and they change all the time, often without notice. | However, if you'd like to write some code to help us minimize duplicate | license files on the filesystem with a common-licenses package, then | you should look at http://rpm.org/ticket/116. Have I mentioned that I'd | like that functionality added to rpm? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL, LGPL or BSD with one case of The Artistic License. Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file? You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
2010/7/27 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL, LGPL or BSD with one case of The Artistic License. Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file? You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. ~spot -- If a GPL binary is compiled with mixed BSD and GPL source files, should we also add the BSD license text along with GPL text? Regards, Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/26/2010 02:53 PM, Chen Lei wrote: 2010/7/27 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL, LGPL or BSD with one case of The Artistic License. Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file? You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. ~spot -- If a GPL binary is compiled with mixed BSD and GPL source files, should we also add the BSD license text along with GPL text? If the upstream provides a copy of an applicable license text with their source, you should package it as %doc. If they don't, you should ask them to add it. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. I have commited a spec file that puts all the COPYING and LICENSE files into a new xen-licenses package (I don't what to include that many files twice). I haven't built it yet as I was going to wait a bit to see what is happening with the python 2.7 merge. Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL, LGPL or BSD with one case of The Artistic License. Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file? Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Hi, [richardfearn] findbugs-bcel: findbugs-bcel-javadoc-5.2-1.3.8.fc12.1.x86_64 findbugs-bcel and findbugs-bcel-javadoc can be installed independently, so I've added licence files to the -javadoc subpackage. Thanks for your work! Rich -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:44 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: - Generating debuginfo packages that match up to subpackages as opposed to being catch-all super packages. There is a bug for this; I would welcome anyone with the power to reopen it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185590 -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/18/2010 11:23 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:44 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: - Generating debuginfo packages that match up to subpackages as opposed to being catch-all super packages. There is a bug for this; I would welcome anyone with the power to reopen it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185590 Reopened. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [ndim] nted: nted-doc-1.10.3-2.fc14.noarch nted-ntedfont-fonts-1.10.3-2.fc14.noarch Fixed in nted-1.10.12-2.fc14. [ndim] simulavr: simulavr-doc-0.1.2.6-6.fc13.noarch Fixed in simulavr-0.1.2.6-7.fc14. [ndim] terminus-fonts: terminus-fonts-console-4.30-1.fc13.noarch Fixed in terminus-fonts-4.30-2.fc14. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 7 July 2010 21:29, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [jgu] emacs-auctex: tex-preview-11.86-2.fc14.noarch emacs-auctex-doc-11.86-2.fc14.noarch Fixed in rawhide (emacs-auctex-11.86-3) [jgu] shorewall: shorewall6-lite-4.4.10-4.fc14.noarch shorewall-lite-4.4.10-4.fc14.noarch Both false positives, shorewall[6]-lite sub-packages both contain COPYING file. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 22:29, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [cdamian] sphinx: libsphinxclient-0.9.9-1.fc13.x86_64 this should be fixed in rawhide now -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
- Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [mnowak] khmeros-fonts: khmeros-fonts-common-5.0-7.fc12.noarch newman devel $ rpmquery -lv khmeros-fonts-common drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 26 2009 /usr/share/fonts/khmeros False positive. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[sergiopr] blitz: blitz-doc-0.9-13.fc13.noarch Fails to build from source at the moment, trying to fix it [sergiopr] CCfits: CCfits-doc-2.2-3.fc14.noarch [sergiopr] cloudy: cloudy-doc-08.00-1.fc14.noarch cloudy-libs-08.00-1.fc14.x86_64 cloudy-devel-doc-08.00-1.fc14.noarch [sergiopr] funtools: funtools-libs-1.4.4-2.fc13.x86_64 [sergiopr] loki-lib: loki-lib-doc-0.1.7-2.fc12.noarch [sergiopr] swarp: swarp-doc-2.17.6-1.fc14.noarch Fixed in rawhide [sergiopr] wcstools: wcstools-libs-3.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64 [sergiopr] xpa: xpa-libs-2.1.12-1.fc14.x86_64 False positives -- Sergio Pascual http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr gpg fingerprint: 5203 B42D 86A0 5649 410A F4AC A35F D465 F263 BCCC Departamento de Astrofísica -- Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote: [salimma] gambit-c: emacs-gambit-4.3.2-4.fc12.x86_64 [salimma] pure: emacs-pure-0.43-2.fc14.noarch [salimma] vala: emacs-vala-0.9.2-1.fc14.noarch All updated in Rawhide Regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778 Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [sdz] sugar-tamtam: sugar-tamtam-common-0-0.4.20100201git.fc14.x86_64 This seems to be a false-positive. The activity subpackages all depend on the common package, which itself contains the license file. --Sebastian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [jpopelka] dhcp: 12:dhclient-4.1.1-25.P1.fc14.x86_64 - LICENSE file added to dhclient [twaugh] cups: 1:cups-libs-1.4.4-5.fc14.x86_64 - LICENSE.txt file moved to libs subpackage [twaugh] foomatic-db: foomatic-db-filesystem-4.0-17.20100204.fc14.noarch - COPYING file moved to ppd subpackage. filesystem subpackage doesn't contain any data [twaugh] foomatic: foomatic-filters-4.0.4-12.fc14.x86_64 - false positive. Base package and subpackage are shipped with COPYING [twaugh] gutenprint: gutenprint-doc-5.2.5-8.fc14.x86_64 - COPYING file added to base package [twaugh] hplip: hplip-common-3.10.5-6.fc14.x86_64 - COPYING file added to common subpackage [twaugh] system-config-printer: system-config-printer-libs-1.2.3-3.fc14.x86_64 - COPYING file moved to libs subpackage Regards -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 21:29, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [john5342] ebook-tools: ebook-tools-libs-0.1.1-5.fc12.x86_64 False positive: libs subpackage contains license file and all other ebook-tools.srpm derived packages depend on it. -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[pknirsch] tuned: tuned-utils-0.2.14-1.fc14.noarch Added COPYING into the package. Fixed in git. Soon will be fixed in Fedora (with new tuned release). Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wednesday 07 July 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [scop] javasqlite: javasqlite-javadoc-20100131-1.fc13.noarch Fixed in CVS but fails to build at the moment in devel i386 (I suspect something broken with the i386 sqlite there: #613414) [scop] vdr: vdr-devel-1.6.0-32.fc14.x86_64 False positive, but the optional -docs package which is not built by default lacked a license file, fixed in devel. [scop] w3c-markup-validator: w3c-markup-validator-libs-1.0-1.fc14.noarch No license file in upstream sources, discussing with upstream about adding one. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 03:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Hello Fedora! Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. ... [sandeen] e2fsprogs: e2fsprogs-static-1.41.12-3.fc14.x86_64 libcom_err-1.41.12-3.fc14.x86_64 Added COPYING %doc to the former subpackage Already exists in the latter. [sandeen] ncid: ncid-client-0.78-1.fc14.noarch Added doc/LICENSE to -client subpackage %docs -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: Hello Fedora! snip == Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! [pbrobinson] csound: csound-javadoc-5.10.1-17.fc13.x86_64 [pbrobinson] xapian-core: xapian-core-libs-1.2.0-3.fc14.x86_64 Both of the above are fixed. [pbrobinson] xapian-bindings: xapian-bindings-python-1.2.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xapian-bindings-ruby-1.2.0-2.fc14.x86_64 These two both have license files included. [pbrobinson] syncevolution: 1:syncevolution-libs-1.0-2.fc14.x86_64 This one is fixed and the fix committed to cvs but there's issues with builds due to moving around of include files in gtk2 and associated for gnome-3. Once I have confirmation that issue is fixed I'll push a new build. Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Tom spot Callaway wrote: [gemi] GtkAda: GtkAda-gl-2.14.0-5.fc14.x86_64 GtkAda-glade-2.14.0-5.fc14.x86_64 GtkAda-gnome-2.14.0-5.fc14.x86_64 Those sub-libraries do actually depend on the main library, but they weren't linked to it, which can't be right. I added the missing link options, so now there are automatic dependencies. You will also suffer a horrible horrible curse. Taken from here I presume: [mlichvar] ncurses: ncurses-base-5.7-7.20100130.fc13.x86_64 Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Tom spot Callaway wrote: There is actually a benefit to having the subpackage name be part of the license location, in situations where the independent subpackage name significantly differs from the basename of the source package, it is easier for someone not versed in RPM to locate the applicable license texts while traversing /usr/share/doc/ . Another way would be to have symbolic links named after the subpackages, pointing to the directory named after the source package. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
2010/7/7 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: [makowski] firebird: firebird-filesystem-2.1.3.18185.0-8.fc14.x86_64 this one only hold some directories it make no since to put licences in firebird-doc-2.1.3.18185.0-8.fc14.x86_64 this one have all the doc and of course the licence -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [harald] dracut: dracut-tools-006-2.fc14.noarch [harald] udev: libudev-158-2.fc14.x86_64 What's the problem with these? $ rpm -ql dracut-tools |grep COPYING /usr/share/doc/dracut-tools-006/COPYING $ rpm -q --requires dracut-tools |grep dracut $ Ok, dracut-tools really needs to depend on dracut and can drop the COPYING, but that's another story :) $ rpm -ql libudev|grep COPYING /usr/share/doc/libudev-151/COPYING The problem might be, that libudev-devel also contains COPYING, so libudev-devel should be fixed rather than libudev. $ rpm -ql udev|grep COPYING /usr/share/doc/udev-151/COPYING This COPYING file is a different file than the libudev COPYING in the source tarball, though it has the same content. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wednesday 07 of July 2010 22:29:01 Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! ~spot [mhlavink] cyrus-imapd: cyrus-imapd-devel-2.3.16-4.fc14.x86_64 cyrus-imapd-perl-2.3.16-4.fc14.x86_64 fixed [mhlavink] nut: nut-hal-2.4.3-3.fc14.x86_64 nut-client-2.4.3-3.fc14.x86_64 nut-client fixed, nut-hal is false positive [mhlavink] pciutils: pciutils-libs-3.1.6-4.fc13.x86_64 fixed -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
ons 2010-07-07 klockan 16:29 -0400 skrev Tom spot Callaway: Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! ~spot [ellert] dcap: dcap-libs-2.47.2-2.fc14.x86_64 False positive - it is the other way around: the license file is in dcap-libs and dcap depends on dcap-libs. [ellert] voms: voms-doc-1.9.17.1-1.fc14.noarch Fixed in F12, F13, EPEL4 and EPEL5. The rawhide build is currently blocked by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611781 The EPEL6 build can not be done yet due to missing build deps. vomsjapi-1.9.17.1-1.fc14.x86_64 False positive - this package already has its own copy of the license file. [ellert] xrootd: xrootd-libs-20100315-2.fc14.x86_64 xrootd-doc-20100315-2.fc14.noarch False positives: upstream source does not contain a license file. Guidelines state packager should not create one. Mattias smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! openoffice.org: added LICENCE to non-dependant subpackages [*] flute: added COPYING to all subpackages libwmf: moved licences into commonly required -lite subpackage icu: move licences into lib subpackage, and copied into the doc subpackage hunspell-be: added missing licence notice to subpackage %doc hunspell-et: false positive, hunspell-et and hyphen-et contain licences in %doc as COPYRIGHT hunspell-hr: added licence notice to all subpackages %doc hunspell-lb: false positive, hunspell-lb and mythes-lb contain the full text of the licence in their %doc as README_lb_LU.txt hunspell-sr: added licence.txt to all subpackages %doc hunspell-nb: false positive, each subpackage contains a licence notice in their %doc openoffice-lv: added licence.txt to all subpackages %doc sac: added COPYING to all subpackages %doc writer2latex: added COPYING to all subpackages %doc zaf: false positive, hyphen-af and hyphen-zu already contain COPYING files as %doc [*] not built yet, will be in next build C. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote: Hi, [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? No, it is simply that it isn't sanely scriptable to check to see if that package actually has license text, so the script generated a list of probable subpackage candidates to be manually checked. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/09/2010 10:25 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! openoffice.org: added LICENCE to non-dependant subpackages [*] flute: added COPYING to all subpackages libwmf: moved licences into commonly required -lite subpackage icu: move licences into lib subpackage, and copied into the doc subpackage hunspell-be: added missing licence notice to subpackage %doc hunspell-et: false positive, hunspell-et and hyphen-et contain licences in %doc as COPYRIGHT hunspell-hr: added licence notice to all subpackages %doc hunspell-lb: false positive, hunspell-lb and mythes-lb contain the full text of the licence in their %doc as README_lb_LU.txt hunspell-sr: added licence.txt to all subpackages %doc hunspell-nb: false positive, each subpackage contains a licence notice in their %doc openoffice-lv: added licence.txt to all subpackages %doc sac: added COPYING to all subpackages %doc writer2latex: added COPYING to all subpackages %doc zaf: false positive, hyphen-af and hyphen-zu already contain COPYING files as %doc [*] not built yet, will be in next build Awesome, thanks! Did you also fix/check hunspell-no ? ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 11:25 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote: Hi, [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? No, it is simply that it isn't sanely scriptable to check to see if that package actually has license text, so the script generated a list of probable subpackage candidates to be manually checked. I can add a few heuristics scanning the filelists of any pkg which is a potential positive - looking for COPYING* or LICENSE* it won't be perfect but I bet it'll reduce the false positives - unfortunately it will create some false negatives too. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [twoerner] system-config-firewall: system-config-firewall-base-1.2.25-1.fc14.noarch system-config-firewall and system-config-firewall-tui both require system-config-firewall-base. system-config-firewall-base provides the COPYING file. Therefore no need for the others to provide it also... Thanks, Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/09/2010 11:32 AM, seth vidal wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 11:25 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote: Hi, [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? No, it is simply that it isn't sanely scriptable to check to see if that package actually has license text, so the script generated a list of probable subpackage candidates to be manually checked. I can add a few heuristics scanning the filelists of any pkg which is a potential positive - looking for COPYING* or LICENSE* it won't be perfect but I bet it'll reduce the false positives - unfortunately it will create some false negatives too. Sure. Better than nothing. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 11:47 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/09/2010 11:32 AM, seth vidal wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 11:25 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote: Hi, [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? No, it is simply that it isn't sanely scriptable to check to see if that package actually has license text, so the script generated a list of probable subpackage candidates to be manually checked. I can add a few heuristics scanning the filelists of any pkg which is a potential positive - looking for COPYING* or LICENSE* it won't be perfect but I bet it'll reduce the false positives - unfortunately it will create some false negatives too. Sure. Better than nothing. done. http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/indy-rockers-with-false-positives-marked.txt and script updated here: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/indy-pkgs-for-spot.py -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to the files contained within the subpackage. What about debuginfo packages? They do not require the base package but usually also do not include the license texts. Regards Till pgpf23AjDzbcc.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [sailer] ghdl: ghdl-grt-0.29-1.138svn.0.fc13.x86_64 [sailer] libsqlite3x: libsq3-20071018-8.fc12.x86_64 [sailer] mingw32-libsqlite3x: mingw32-libsq3-20071018-9.fc12.noarch [sailer] mingw32-wpcap: mingw32-wpcap-docs-4.1.final1-1.fc13.noarch mingw32-wpcap-examples-4.1.final1-1.fc13.noarch All fixed in rawhide now. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Hello Fedora! Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. Upon the advice of Red Hat Legal, we have slightly amended the Fedora Licensing Guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines). The following section has been added: Subpackage Licensing Can you elaborate the cases below? I can't spot anything wrong with them: [corsepiu] gtkglext: gtkglext-libs-1.2.0-10.fc12.x86_64 # repoquery -ql 'gtkglext-libs' ... /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/COPYING /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/COPYING.LIB /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/README /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/TODO [corsepiu] OpenSceneGraph: OpenThreads-2.8.3-1.fc14.x86_64 # repoquery -ql OpenThreads.i686 ... /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/AUTHORS.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/NEWS.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/README.txt Both are cases where the binary base packages' names differ from the srpm name. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [mmaslano] perl-Frontier-RPC: perl-Frontier-RPC-doc-0.07b4p1-10.fc14.noarch The main package and sub-package already requires sub-package doc that includes copying. Doc sub-package was created to solve conflicts between those two. Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
With this we've reached the point once more where the default %doc dir is
a poor choice, because it is based on the subpackage's %{name} instead of
the src.rpm's or base package's %{name}.
For the common tools'n'library split of a package, the changed guidelines
duplicate the license files by storing them in two different directories
when using %doc:
/usr/share/doc/name-1.0/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/name-libs-1.0/COPYING
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/10 21:29, Tom spot Callaway wrote: ... Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed. Thanks! ~spot ... [pghmcfc] bluefish: bluefish-shared-data-2.0.1-1.fc14.noarch False positive: bluefish-shared-data contains the license text and is required by the main bluefish package. There are no other subpackages. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch hi, Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package doesn't Requires: -common? Thanks, regards, Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 02:09 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch hi, Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package doesn't Requires: -common? If someone installs the main package, they wouldn't get a copy of the license along with it. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote: [mschwendt] audacious: audacious-libs-2.4-0.3.alpha2.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in Rawhide. [mschwendt] mcs: mcs-libs-0.7.1-9.fc13.x86_64 False positive. mcs-libs contains all the %doc files, and mcs automatically depends on mcs-libs. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Hi, --- On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: | [shakthimaan] poky-scripts: poky-depends-6-6.fc13.noarch \-- poky-depends is just a meta-package that pulls licensed software already included in Fedora repository required for poky software builds. SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[sharkcz] ann: ann-libs-1.1.1-4.fc12.x86_64 = already in -libs [sharkcz] codeblocks: codeblocks-libs-10.05-1.fc14.x86_64 = fixed in CVS [sharkcz] openhpi: openhpi-libs-2.14.1-3.fc14.x86_64 = fixed in CVS [sharkcz] podofo: podofo-libs-0.8.1-2.fc14.x86_64 = correct in actual pkgs [sharkcz] sg3_utils: sg3_utils-libs-1.29-1.fc14.x86_64 = fixed in CVS [sharkcz] ski: ski-libs-1.3.2-8.fc12.x86_64 = already in -libs [sharkcz] squirrel: squirrel-libs-2.2.4-1.fc13.x86_64 = already in -libs [sharkcz] tailor: python-vcpx-0.9.35-8.fc14.noarch = fixed in CVS [sharkcz] tinyerp: tinyerp-server-4.2.3.4-6.fc12.noarch = correct in actual pkgs [sharkcz] wxGTK: wxBase-2.8.11-1.fc14.x86_64 = correct in actual pkgs [sharkcz] zabbix: zabbix-docs-1.8.2-1.fc14.noarch = no real content here since zabbix 1.8, only pointer to www -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 Tom spot Callaway wrote: [michich] opencryptoki: opencryptoki-libs-2.3.1-6.fc14.x86_64 [michich] tpm-tools: tpm-tools-pkcs11-1.3.5-2.fc13.x86_64 Fixed and built for Rawhide. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[jskarvad] sendmail: sendmail-milter-8.14.4-8.fc14.x86_64 license added to sendmail-milter-8.14.4-9.fc14 regards Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [jsafrane] net-snmp: 1:net-snmp-libs-5.5-16.fc14.x86_64 False positive, net-snmp-libs already contains COPYING in %doc [jsafrane] OpenIPMI: OpenIPMI-libs-2.0.18-2.fc14.x86_64 Fixed, OpenIPMI-2.0.18-3.fc14 Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [sgallagh] sssd: libcollection-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64 libpath_utils-0.2.0-15.fc14.x86_64 libref_array-0.1.0-15.fc14.x86_64 libdhash-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64 sssd-client-1.2.1-15.fc14.x86_64 All of these subpackages are in compliance. They have always carried all of the appropriate COPYING and COPYING.LESSER files. - -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkw1vhIACgkQeiVVYja6o6OmtwCeMEVW0Pc/DhhJ+zG4VdkYnQPW zCUAnRNJT8FKfTIdtb2ADM9ezLlmcC0F =TBoO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[psabata] iproute: iproute-doc-2.6.34-3.fc14.x86_64 Should be fixed. Both iproute and iproute-doc now install the COPYING file. iproute-2.6.34-5.fc14 iproute-doc-2.6.34-5.fc14 -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [plautrba] finger: finger-server-0.17-39.fc12.x86_64 Fixed and built for Rawhide. Petr -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom spot Callaway wrote: file-libs-5.04-10.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce Jan Kaluza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 06:08 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: cim-schema-docs has no license file packaged with it. /me blames the DMTF. The content is a separate tarball. I suppose we could suck the license file out of the other content zip (the MOF files) and include here. Thoughts? If the appropriate license is included in another source tarball which is already part of the SRPM, please use it to meet this requirement. If not, you do not need to do anything. mirrormanager-client and gpxe* are false positives - all subpackages include the licenses in %doc. Thanks! ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:49 PM, Juan Rodriguez wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com mailto:tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [nushio] rabbitvcs: rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3-1.fc14.noarch I'm not very well versed in legalese, but rabbitvcs-core does include the following files: /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/COPYING /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/MAINTAINERS The rest of the subpackages require explicitly installing rabbitvcs-core, so copying COPYING into them is unnecessary. So, if I understood correctly, it's a false positive for rabbitvcs-core too. (There's no rabbitvcs package btw, that might have triggered it?) That's right, this is a false positive, and it was triggered because the subpackage base name did not exactly match the source package base name. :) Thanks for checking! ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 03:07 AM, Till Maas wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to the files contained within the subpackage. What about debuginfo packages? They do not require the base package but usually also do not include the license texts. A great question. Debuginfo packages are special. IMHO, there are multiple ways that we could improve debuginfo packages, specifically: - Generating debuginfo packages that match up to subpackages as opposed to being catch-all super packages. - Having subpackage specific debuginfo packages depend upon the files for which they provide debuginfo (or simply dependent on the subpackage that they match up to) If those items came to pass, then we would not have licensing concerns with debuginfo packages. (Adding Roland to the explicit CC here, because this hadn't really occurred to me before, but would be another great reason to make these changes.) However, because of how the debuginfo packages are generated (in the common case at least), maintainers do not need to worry about adding license texts to them at this time, as that would add significant complexity. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 03:44 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Basically, what this means is this: If you maintain a package, and that package generates subpackages, then each subpackage must either include a copy of the appropriate licensing texts (as available in the source), or it must Require (either implicitly or explicitly) another subpackage which does include the appropriate licensing texts. Is there any point in say, splitting a package into an additional -licence/-doc subpackage and adding Requires on that from the other subpackages ? That is certainly your choice as a package maintainer, but I'm not going to say that you _MUST_ do that. I'm not advocating making the dependency chain any longer or more complex. :) ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 03:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Can you elaborate the cases below? I can't spot anything wrong with them: [corsepiu] gtkglext: gtkglext-libs-1.2.0-10.fc12.x86_64 # repoquery -ql 'gtkglext-libs' ... /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/COPYING /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/COPYING.LIB /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/README /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/TODO [corsepiu] OpenSceneGraph: OpenThreads-2.8.3-1.fc14.x86_64 # repoquery -ql OpenThreads.i686 ... /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/AUTHORS.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/NEWS.txt /usr/share/doc/OpenThreads-2.8.2/README.txt Both are cases where the binary base packages' names differ from the srpm name. This fact is why they got flagged. Both of these are clearly false positives, thank you for checking them. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
With this we've reached the point once more where the default %doc dir is
a poor choice, because it is based on the subpackage's %{name} instead of
the src.rpm's or base package's %{name}.
For the common tools'n'library split of a package, the changed guidelines
duplicate the license files by storing them in two different directories
when using %doc:
/usr/share/doc/name-1.0/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/name-libs-1.0/COPYING
Yes, I absolutely understand that. The intent is to minimize this by
leveraging dependencies (tools depends on libs). A common, system-wide
directory for license files to be dropped into is a recipe for disaster
(COPYING conflicts with COPYING).
http://rpm.org/ticket/116, if it were implemented as I've proposed,
attempts to address this by setting up a common license dir, then
comparing the license text payload against existant files in that
license dir, and if a match occurs (not just a filename match), the file
would become a hard link to the file in the common license dir.
If no match is found, the file is written into the docdir.
This allows for us to make a common-licenses package that is default
installed as part of Fedora and minimize license text duplication.
Although, as James Antill pointed out on that ticket, license text
duplication doesn't really account for too much disk space. They're
small to begin with.
There is actually a benefit to having the subpackage name be part of the
license location, in situations where the independent subpackage name
significantly differs from the basename of the source package, it is
easier for someone not versed in RPM to locate the applicable license
texts while traversing /usr/share/doc/ .
~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package doesn't Requires: -common? Caveat: I have not looked at your specific spec, so I am hypothesizing here. Lets say that your beteckna-fonts SRPM generates these binary RPMS: - beteckna-fonts - beteckna-fonts-common - beteckna-fonts-shiny If both beteckna-fonts and beteckna-fonts-shiny depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on beteckna-fonts-common, and beteckna-fonts-common has the license texts in it, you do not need to do anything. If beteckna-fonts (or beteckna-fonts-shiny) does not depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on beteckna-fonts-common, then you will need to add copies of the license text to that package. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom spot Callaway wrote: Hello Fedora! Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. [jreznik] leonidas-kde-theme: leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch rpmls leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm | grep COPYING -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3/COPYING.CC-BY-SA -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3/COPYING.GPLv2 rpmls leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm | grep COPYING -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3/COPYING.CC-BY- SA -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3/COPYING.GPLv2 [jreznik] system-config-netboot: system-config-netboot-cmd-0.1.45.4-8.fc13.noarch Fixed in system-config-netboot-cmd-0.1.45.4-9.fc14, building right now but probably it would be better to eol this package. No cake from me... R. -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
2010/7/8 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com:
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
With this we've reached the point once more where the default %doc dir is
a poor choice, because it is based on the subpackage's %{name} instead of
the src.rpm's or base package's %{name}.
For the common tools'n'library split of a package, the changed guidelines
duplicate the license files by storing them in two different directories
when using %doc:
/usr/share/doc/name-1.0/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/name-libs-1.0/COPYING
Yes, I absolutely understand that. The intent is to minimize this by
leveraging dependencies (tools depends on libs). A common, system-wide
directory for license files to be dropped into is a recipe for disaster
(COPYING conflicts with COPYING).
Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage
instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs
subpackage?
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [omajid] dbus-java: dbus-java-javadoc-2.7-3.fc13.noarch [omajid] libmatthew-java: libmatthew-java-javadoc-0.7.2-2.fc13.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. Cheers, Omair -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:00 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package doesn't Requires: -common? Caveat: I have not looked at your specific spec, so I am hypothesizing here. Lets say that your beteckna-fonts SRPM generates these binary RPMS: - beteckna-fonts - beteckna-fonts-common - beteckna-fonts-shiny If both beteckna-fonts and beteckna-fonts-shiny depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on beteckna-fonts-common, and beteckna-fonts-common has the license texts in it, you do not need to do anything. If beteckna-fonts (or beteckna-fonts-shiny) does not depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on beteckna-fonts-common, then you will need to add copies of the license text to that package. ~spot okay, got it. thanks!! Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 10:37 AM, Chen Lei wrote: Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs subpackage? If the base package depends on -libs subpackage, then you can only put the license text in -libs. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [kklic] emacs: 1:emacs-common-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64 1:emacs-el-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch built in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305148 regards, Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden? A. This is a permitted exception to that. Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review guidelines, please ? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Le 07/07/2010 22:29, Tom spot Callaway a écrit : [remi] mysql++: mysql++-manuals-3.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64 done [remi] ocsinventory: ocsinventory-reports-1.3.2-3.fc14.noarch false positive Regards -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/08/2010 12:09 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden? A. This is a permitted exception to that. Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review guidelines, please ? Well, the Packaging:LicensingGuidelines are part of the packaging guidelines, so the first half is technically done, but it could be made more clear in the main Guidelines section. I've made those changes now. Thanks, ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On 07/07/2010 11:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [rrelyea] pcsc-lite: pcsc-lite-doc-1.6.1-4.fc14.noarch pcsc-lite-libs-1.6.1-4.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Hi, [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? TTFN Paul -- Biggles was quietly reading his favourite book when Algy burst through the door. Distracted for a moment, Biggles surveyed what had happened and turned a page. Algy old man he said, clearing his throat, use the handle next time... - Taken from Biggles combs his Hair signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Am Mittwoch, den 07.07.2010, 16:29 -0400 schrieb Tom spot Callaway: Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by this. ... [cwickert] nimbus: nimbus-metacity-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch gtk-nimbus-engine-0.1.4-2.fc13.x86_64 nimbus-icon-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch $ rpm -ql gtk-nimbus-engine | grep COPYING/usr/share/doc/gtk-nimbus-engine-0.1.4/COPYING $ rpm -ql nimbus-icon-theme | grep COPYING/usr/share/doc/nimbus-icon-theme-0.1.4/COPYING Regars, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Am Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 schrieb Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: [tomspur] mpi4py: mpi4py-docs-1.2.1-3.fc14.noarch mpi4py-common-1.2.1-3.fc14.noarch mpi4py-docs now requires mpi4py-common. The common subpackage provides the license files and all other subpackages require now the common package, so every subpackage requires now a package with the license files. [tomspur] python-minimock: python3-minimock-1.2.5-3.fc13.noarch The python3-minimock subpackage contains the license files on it's own and so it doesn't need to require the main package - false positive. Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Hi,
My package malaga was on your list. Here are the %files entries:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_infodir}/%{name}*
%{_bindir}/mal*
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/mal*
%files -n lib%{name}
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc CHANGES.txt GPL.txt README.txt
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
So libmalaga already contains the license text and malaga requires
libmalaga. This package should be fine.
--
Ville-Pekka Vainio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Am Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 schrieb Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: cim-schema-docs has no license file packaged with it. /me blames the DMTF. The content is a separate tarball. I suppose we could suck the license file out of the other content zip (the MOF files) and include here. Thoughts? mirrormanager-client and gpxe* are false positives - all subpackages include the licenses in %doc. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
Tom spot Callaway wrote: Maintainers should look at the bottom of this email for the list. [jfearn] publican: publican-doc-2.1-0.fc14.noarch publican-doc includes fdl.txt in it's %files, which is the GFDL 1.2 text previously sourced from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn jfe...@redhat.com Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: Hello Fedora! Both fixed in rawhide: [kevin] munin: munin-common-1.4.4-2.fc14.noarch [kevin] xfce-utils: xfce4-doc-4.6.2-1.fc14.noarch Thanks. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
[toshio] python-decorator: python3-decorator-3.2.0-1.fc14.noarch Fixed [toshio] python-setuptools: python3-setuptools-0.6.13-5.fc14.noarch [toshio] python-sqlalchemy: python3-sqlalchemy-0.6.1-1.fc14.x86_64 False positives. -Toshio pgpcoKf44yJLb.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [skvidal] yum-utils: yum-plugin-protectbase-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-list-data-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-priorities-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-versionlock-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-updateonboot-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-NetworkManager-dispatcher-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-upgrade-helper-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-rpm-warm-cache-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-merge-conf-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-tmprepo-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-remove-with-leaves-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-tsflags-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-fs-snapshot-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-aliases-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-auto-update-debug-info-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-show-leaves-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-fastestmirror-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-changelog-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-filter-data-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-downloadonly-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-post-transaction-actions-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-local-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-verify-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-security-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-keys-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch yum-plugin-refresh-updatesd-1.1.27-2.fc14.noarch COPYING added to all of them - I considered just requiring yum-utils on all of them - but that feels weird/wrong. COPYING is innocuous and relatively small. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as %doc), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc. However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to the files contained within the subpackage. What if the large base package requires a tiny subpackage? For instance, package A has a small A-plugins subpackage and a small A-fonts subpackage which carries only two fonts. Both the A-plugins and the A-fonts subpackages can be used by other software (independent of A), but the main A package needs these subpackages for its own functionality, hence the base package A requires these subpackages. Given that the subpackages carry the same license with the base package A, what package or packages should carry the license file? Orcan PS: Congrats to everyone who read and understood the question. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.comwrote: [nushio] rabbitvcs: rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3-1.fc14.noarch I'm not very well versed in legalese, but rabbitvcs-core does include the following files: /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/COPYING /usr/share/doc/rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3/MAINTAINERS The rest of the subpackages require explicitly installing rabbitvcs-core, so copying COPYING into them is unnecessary. So, if I understood correctly, it's a false positive for rabbitvcs-core too. (There's no rabbitvcs package btw, that might have triggered it?) -- Ing. Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno Desarrollador de Sistemas Abiertos Sitio: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: [jwilson] ctrlproxy: ctrlproxy-devel-3.0.8-6.fc14.x86_64 [jwilson] lirc: lirc-doc-0.8.6-5.fc14.x86_64 lirc-libs-0.8.6-5.fc14.x86_64 lirc-remotes-0.8.6-5.fc14.x86_64 All better now. At least, mostly. Sent off a ctrlproxy build (I thought someone else had taken over maintainership of this, but I guess its still mine...), didn't do an lirc build yet though, as I need to update to the forthcoming 0.8.7 code w/patchification for the new hotness about to be merged upstream lirc support... -- Jarod Wilson ja...@wilsonet.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
