[Bug 208420] Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208420





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-12-07 04:38 EST -------
* rpmlint is silent
* follow guidelines
* sane provides
* buildrequires seem right
* match upstream
c856556d4372226f99cf7e9a888e9118  conky-1.4.4.tar.bz2
* doc not content

A remark (not a blocker, may be changed later, the group is not
used for anything currently), but Applications/System seems wrong
to me, something like 'User Interface/X' would be better in my 
opinion.

A blocker: the COPYING is a BSD like license, while the whole is
under the GPL. First of all (especially if upstream authors listen 
that report ;-) the GPL notice should also be in the tarball, along
with the BSD license, named, for example COPYING.GPL. But it is
not an obligation for you as a packager to add the license if it isn't
done upstream. However, in cases like conky, where there are more than 
one license covering parts of code, and especially in that case, with
a COPYING which doesn't match the package license, some clarification
is required. I see 2 way to do that clarification:

* add a file with the appropriate name, stating something along

Most of the conky code is covered by the BSD license in COPYING,
some files are GPL, and other files lack attribution and seem to be in 
the public domain.

* do an audit of the code and add file with the summary, with
something like (you can also have a look at what I did for grads, in
/usr/share/doc/grads-1.9b4/grads-copyright_summary)


Files under the GPL:
libtcp-portmon.h      
libtcp-portmon.c      
audacious.h
....

Files covered by the BSD license in COPYING:
conky.h
conky.c
remoted.c
....

Files covered by a BSD license (from http://www.musicpd.org):
libmpdclient.c
libmpdclient.h

No clear license, GPL compatible?
 * Besed on code published in _Mastering Algorithms in C_
 * by Kyle Loudon (O'Reilly 1999).
 * Modified by Philip Kovacs 
hash.h
hash.c

No clear license, seems to be public domain:
 *  $Id: ftp.h 130 2005-08-21 22:10:54Z brenden1 $
ftp.c
ftp.h

 * $Id: mpd.c 598 2006-03-16 18:29:23Z jasper_la $
mpd.c

 *  $Id: linux.c 738 2006-11-08 03:06:42Z pkovacs $
linux.c

No license, no author, certainly public domain
xmms2.c
netbsd.c
....




Doing a full audit of the source takes more time, but it allows 
to find problematic files. In that case, we have

hash.h
hash.c
 which have clearly 2 authors, but no license. No license (since the 
Bern convention) means a restrictive license (no right to redistribute
or modify). So it needs clarification from Philip.

For ftp.c, ftp.h, mpd.c and linux.c, I am not sure that a rcs Id acts
as an author identification, but if it is the case, then there is the
same issue than for hash.c, otherwise they may be considered public
domain.

(as a side note, if I recall well interfaces cannot have their 
copyright enforced, so if I am not wrong so the .h licenses are 
not really problematic).

-- 
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.