https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479967 --- Comment #4 from Ed Marshall <esm@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/fritzing-parts/fritzing-parts.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/fritzing-parts/fritzing-parts-0.9.3b-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Fritzing is a free software tool to support designers, artists and hobbyists to work creatively with interactive electronics. The fritzing-parts package contains a library of part definitions, including both meta-data and related graphics. Fedora Account System Username: logic So yeah, Friting asset licensing has not been very well-managed. :( To make things, simpler, I'm rebasing this to 0.9.3b, since upstream cleaned up a few things with respect to licensing in that release (and that was going to be my next step anyway, so might as well just do it now). An audit by hand shows most assets as not being individually-licensed, thankfully. A bunch of assets are explicitly licensed CC-BY-SA, (which goes with the top-level LICENSE.txt), and there's a large number of SVG assets (which appear to be converted from external sources like gEDA and Kicad) which are all unversioned GPL (tagged by Fritzing's XML schema, so fedora-review wasn't catching it). The two CC0 matches appear to be mistakes; there's no license mentioned at all in either of those files, which should fall back to the distribution-level license. These mismatches carry through to 0.9.3b as well. Also with 0.9.3b, there's a new file that throws a CC0 error, and while it has an xmlns:cc attribute on the svg element, there's no license actually specified, so again, we should fall back to the distribution-level license. This one is weird in that it's not the only file in the distribution with a ccREL xmlns attribute, although it's the only one that I noticed from a quick check that didn't have some sort of cc:* element or an rdf section. I think I'm going to have to chalk this up to a bug somewhere, unless someone has a better idea of what is happening here. (Weird that it's all SparkFun SVG files throwing these errors. ;)) Anyway, long story short: I'll update the License tag to "CC-BY-SA and GPL+", but I'm going to skip adding CC0, since there is already a license on everything that doesn't explicitly have one here (the top-level license), and none of the files fedora-review tags as "CC0" explicitly specify any kind of license (and nothing in the distribution explicitly chooses CC0). Regarding a "Requires: fritzing = %{version}" tag, I've intentionally avoided adding an explicit dependency from the parts library to Fritzing itself, because during this transition phase you have to be able to install this without explicitly pulling in Fritzing (because the current version of Fritzing's file conflicts prevent it). Even in the future, there's no explicit reason why fritzing-parts needs fritzing to be installed, and there's always the possibility of other software in the future being able to make use of the parts library. (fritzing, however, will need to have a Requires on fritzing-parts once it's been updated, because it's useless without the parts library.) Anyway, thanks for taking the time to look at this! I've updated the .spec and SRPM above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
