On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:07:07 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > I'm really not trying to be difficult. I think one can reasonably see how > what you're saying doesn't necessarily follow from what's written. The > section on MP3 should be changed to make this more clear, to make things > easier for both packagers and reviewers. Well, I even quoted it for you. [...] MP3 is heavily patented [...] Some upstream packages include patents or trademarks that we are not allowed to ship even as source code. [...] IMO, it's leading nowhere if you're reading inbetween the lines. I fail to see why we would ship something "heavily patented". > > > but then I came across this reviewed, accepted package which has been in > > > Fedora for three and a half years, so I wanted to check if that was a > > > mistake or if my attitude had been over-zealous. > > Doing reviews isn't easy. > > I didn't mean to imply that it was, or either ineptitude or maliciousness. > Just lack of clarity. Would that help? One reviewer would skim over the contents of a large source code archive, another would not. One reviewer would miss a subfolder deep in the tree even with "MP3" in its name, another one would notice it but not realize that it's an implementation of a codec and not just some frame/ID3 parsing or similar. More fun you'd get if it the source contains problematic code other than MP3. ;) -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.4-2.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.33 0.20 0.20 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
