Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 23:02 EST ------- Partial review: BLOCKERS: * No upstream tarball to compare with included tarball (MUST item) * Version of source (6) doesn't match package version (6.90) * Description field is the same as summary field. * Licensing is quite varied and contradictory: - The License field mentions GFDL, while no mention of such a license exists in the tarball contents. - The tarball contains a copy of GPL, while no file in the package is actually licensed under the GPL either. - The license for the program "eula.py" is not mentioned in its header, making it proprietary software. - The file "README-Accessibility" in the package says "Copyright © 2003 by Red Hat, Inc." (no mention of license, free or not) - The file "eula.txt" in the package says "Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Fedora Project. All rights reserved." (definitely not free) and also mentions a few trademarks. * The file "eula.txt" mentions weird things: - It says there is something called "Fedora Core". What is that? ;-) - It talks about "Fedora Core 6". But it's for "Fedora 7 test-something" or "Fedora Rawhide" or something. - It says that "The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code." Rarely true. Instead, the source code usually contains a copyright license (like the GPL, which free software usually has), not an end user license agreement (which proprietary software usually has). - It says that except "certain image files containing the Fedora trademark", the license terms allow one to "[...] modify, and redistribute the component". Not always true, considering packages that are only "Distributable". Not always true because of Section 5 either. - It talks about a package named "anaconda-images", which does not exist in Fedora anymore. - In its Section 5, it requires things from users in Pakistan and basically asks them to "represent and warrant" that they will not help their neighbor[ing countries] and ask the US government for permission for giving a copy of the software (parts of which he may have written himself) to his friend, among other things. - I totally prefer licenses that say "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it" (from GPL clause 5), instead of those who say "By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to the terms of this agreement." Who has written this anyway? ;-) - /me escapes SUGGESTIONS: * "fedora-release-6" or a part of it could become a macro. At the minimum could be replace with "%{name}-6". * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share * Use "cp -p" and "install -p" instead of "cp" and "install" everywhere * Use "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" instead of "%defattr(-,root,root)" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review