[Bug 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=516343





--- Comment #13 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-08-22 09:23:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Please  repost an updated SRPM with the changes suggested by Guido (Comment
> 11). Also I don't think you need Requires: jpackage-utils in the javadoc
> package, as it depends on the main, which also requires jpackage-utils.

Spec URL: http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/metadata-extractor.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/metadata-extractor-2.3.1-3.fc10.src.rpm

Changelog:
* Sat Aug 22 2009 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> 2.3.1-3
- Used a different workaround as suggested by Guido Grazioli to make 
  junit tests complete successfully


Please note that I didn't removed the "Requires: jpackage-utils" because this
exactly what is used in the ant template you can find in the Java Packaging
Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java

> > Read upsteam homepage for license information
> Upstream says "The code is protected by copyright, though only to avoid people
> selling it unmodified or copyrighting it themselves." Which is not quite PD,
> but close. Someone else may need to confirm the licencing here. All the source
> headers appear to be in place.

Upstream, in the "About this library" paragraph in its homepage, also states
this:
"This metadata library is available with Java source code for usage in the
public domain." 

Moreover, as you noted, all source files contain the following text:

 * This class is public domain software - that is, you can do whatever you want
 * with it, and include it software that is licensed under the GNU or the
 * BSD license, or whatever other licence you choose, including proprietary
 * closed source licenses.  Similarly, I release this Java version under the
 * same license, though I do ask that you leave this header in tact.
 *
 * If you make modifications to this code that you think would benefit the
 * wider community, please send me a copy and I'll post it on my site.
 *
 * If you make use of this code, I'd appreciate hearing about it.
 *   drew.noakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 * Latest version of this software kept at
 *   http://drewnoakes.com/

Or the following text:

 * This is public domain software - that is, you can do whatever you want
 * with it, and include it software that is licensed under the GNU or the
 * BSD license, or whatever other licence you choose, including proprietary
 * closed source licenses.  I do ask that you leave this header in tact.
 *
 * If you make modifications to this code that you think would benefit the
 * wider community, please send me a copy and I'll post it on my site.
 *
 * If you make use of this code, I'd appreciate hearing about it.
 *   drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 * Latest version of this software kept at
 *   http://drewnoakes.com/

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]