https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2) > Taking for review. > > Two things stand out to me here. First, the licensing: > > > # (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause > > # 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0 > > # Apache-2.0 > > # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 > > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > > # MIT > > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib > > # MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0 > > # Unlicense OR MIT > > # Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT > > License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT > > My understanding of the new licensing guidelines is that this is not how we > are supposed to fill out the License: field. The license field is supposed > to be a simple conjunction of all the sub-licenses involved and should not > contain further simplifications the way you've done here. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ > #_no_effective_license_analysis and the rest of the page. > > This should be > License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (0BSD OR MIT OR > Apache-2.0) AND Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR > MIT) AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND > (MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0) AND (Unlicense OR MIT) AND (Zlib OR Apache-2.0 > OR MIT) Not really. This is not documented yet, but "(A OR B)" and ("B OR A") are equivalent, so at least those can be deduplicated. > See also recent discussion on the legal list, > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > thread/F4MYD7U6D2ROAL3CAOHSYDL3H6TPWZOT/ Yes, I have followed this discussion. However, at least "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" AND "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT)" are idempotent and can be reduced to "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause". The "AND" operator is associative (i.e. "(A AND B) AND C" is the same as "A AND (B AND C)" and hence can be simplified to "A AND B AND C" (and here, A and C are identical, so one of them can be dropped). There was also this: """ because we are stubbornly adhering to the view that it is useful to reflect all disjunctive license expressions (if only because this was a convention in the Callaway system). """ Which sounds like there's not a logical basis to this guidance at all :) Anyway, I can yeet the complete string into the License tag. Not sure if that helps anybody, but oh well. > Secondly, I noticed that the gstreamer plugin binary package is called > 'gst-plugin-reqwest'. Existing gstreamer plugins in Fedora use the > 'gstreamer1-plugin(s)-$plugin' pattern and I think it would make sense to > continue with this here and call the subpackage 'gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest'. I disagree. This is against the Naming Guidelines, and there is no documented exception for GStreamer plugins: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_addon_packages I can add "Provides: gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest" to the "gst-plugin-reqwest" subpackage to make it easier to find for users, but I would prefer to have the name of the package match the upstream project. (There's also already the "gst-devtools" and "gst-editing-services" packages, so it wouldn't be the first package that follows this pattern). -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
