Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529485 Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |ti...@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> 2010-11-04 19:45:55 EDT --- Looks good, thanks. However, the licensing issue looks a bit bizarre and that may require I note that the source code doesn't include any sort of GPL header. That plus the presense of the generic GPL text implies that any version of the GPL applies, so GPL+ would be the correct license tag. However, README.txt says: Check out LICENSE.txt or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt for details! The bare bones of it is, this program is distributed in open-source form so that others may share it freely, learn from it, or modify it as they see fit. However, under no circumstances can it be sold! which demonstrates some pretty weak understanding of the GPL; whoever wrote it didn't even read the second paragraph of the preamble. I would assume that this is merely (rather poor) explanatory text and that it's not attempting to add an additional restriction to the GPL, because that would render the whole undistributable. However, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps the legal folks should take a look. And, finally, there's this: This code was written entirely by Nathan Gaylinn (excepting the code used for displaying a tray icon that is adapted from the Psi source [http://psi.affinix.com/]) but is based on the idea of xjoypad by Erich Kitzm<FC>ller. My understanding is that Psi is GPLv2+. However, I don't know exactly which code came from Psi, or if it's sufficient force GPLv2+ on the whole work. So, at this point I'd approve this, but we should see what the legal folks have to say. Or you could perhaps try to obtain clarification from upstream. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: b5aa088827a6f7231e43e45fb942917e3f677ef933109a7b41e13a6b443c95ca qjoypad-4.1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. X license situation is confusing. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (f14, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: qjoypad-4.1.0-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm qjoypad = 4.1.0-2.fc14 qjoypad(x86-64) = 4.1.0-2.fc14 = libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) qjoypad-debuginfo-4.1.0-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm qjoypad-debuginfo = 4.1.0-2.fc14 qjoypad-debuginfo(x86-64) = 4.1.0-2.fc14 = (none) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. * desktop files valid and installed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
