[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023



--- Comment #5 from David Carlos <ddavidcarlos1392@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4)
> > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses
> > MIT.
> > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
> > but the LICENSE file is MIT.
> > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
> > a bit inconsistent to me.
> 
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> >      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> >      found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
> >      generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
> >      license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> >      /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
> >      validators/licensecheck.txt
> 
> Well, there is very little difference in these licenses.  On Pypi the
> package is distributed as BSD licensed…  That's why I didn't complain about
> it.
> 
> The only real difference between those two licenses is:  BSD *requires* you
> to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall
> be' to do it).
> 
> For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to
> redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our
> guidelines.
> 

We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but the
license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or not, I
really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is not a
packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my opinion, a
inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and the license
file be different.

> 
> > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> 
> I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional
> Python guidelines…

William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed on
the review.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux