https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the review. Will fix the source comment and add a README - how to
actually use this is not really obvious :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Spotify is ready to amend their license statement with (private message):
Spotify confirms that the personal use restriction does not apply for the
open-source downloader. The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Updating links, new spotify upstream release:
spec:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-spotify-client/3/lpf-spotify-client.spec
srpm:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #18 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #18)
Issues:
[cut]
The license is MIT, but there's no license file installed. Please provide
one in %doc.
Done.
[!]: Package consistently
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #19)
On line 33, please use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.
On line 47 and 48 please use %{_sharedstatedir} instead of /var/lib.
I'd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
The version field is the upstream spotify version, I don't really see what
kind of comment that would be? Added the fact that this is indeed upstream
version.
Ok after the comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #21)
I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this
since the Source: url is OK:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Ping. And a thought: isn't this just like it always is when you have a tool
which uses material from someone to build something else: you have to respect
the original copyright owner?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #13 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
The catch is that they are saying that the script may only be used for personal
use, _not_ just the files it downloads.
It is different from gcc, because the script only does one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Three months... but at last a reply [1]. In my eyes, this looks good. And in
yours?
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
The only concern I have is for personal use. I'm not sure it is possible for
us to comply with that license restriction.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Note that the limitation is about what's produced by lpf-spotify, not
lpf-spotify itself. We distribute an open-source tool which produces non-free
software. Isn't this somewhat similar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #9 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Yes, but they have only granted permission for lpf-spotify to perform
automatic downloading and repackaging of the spotify software for personal
use
They're effectively imposing a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Hm...I take your message as this can't be hosted on fedora with this limitation
(maybe is worst possible outcome here).
Since this is not what they intend: Can you think of any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #11 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
I need to think about this some more. This is an entirely new case. We'd be
telling consumers of Fedora this file must only be executed/run for personal
use, which is generally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
I certainly understand that. What I've got so far is [1]. Do you think this is
clear enough (it could certainly be more clear...) ?
A sidenote: in their forum I have a thread [2] with a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
You need to explain to Spotify clearly and simply, what you are doing and how
Fedora would be distributing it (and not the Spotify client), then ask for
someone from Spotify to confirm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
OK, fair enough, I'll try to do that. However, it might take some time. They
are not to responsive in general, and since they are Swedes a lot of them are
on long summer holidays now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|972943 |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
31 matches
Mail list logo
