Bug 191523

Updated:
Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream-1.22-2.fc5.src.rpm

Additionally, with respect to licensing, the author indicates that perl (GPL &
Artistic) is the correct license:

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:52:31 -0500
From: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon>
To: Chris Weyl <cweyl.edu>
Subject: Re: Net::XMPP license question

Yep.


Chris Weyl wrote:
> Hey Ryan--
> 
> Quick question.  I'm in the middle of packaging up Net::XMPP (and for
> that matter, XML::Stream and Net::Jabber) for fedora extras, and it
> was pointed out to me that while Net/XMPP.pm states "COPYRIGHT: This
> module is free software, you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the same terms as Perl itself", the actual archive includes a
> LICENSE.LGPL.
> 
> Are all three of these modules under "the same terms as Perl itself"?
> 
> Thanks:)
>                               -Chris

Did the author have anything at all to say about the large copyright blocks on
the code itself?  The fact that this conflicts both the copyright statements in
the documentation and seemingly the author's intent is disturbing.  It might
even make the software non-distributable.

I really think the author needs to release an update where everything agrees, or
explicitly gives you permision to patch out the conflicting license statements
and delete COPYING.LGPL.  Sorry.

Author emailed, asking for permission to patch out and remove LGPL and statemente.

Any response from the author on any of these?

None yet, aside from the initial confirmation that (at the least) the modules
are covered under the perl licenses.

Sent another request to him earlier today.

From: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon>	
To: Chris Weyl <cweyl.edu>
Date: May 22, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Net::XMPP license question

Whatever.  I don't actually care one way or the other.  Go right ahead.

Chris Weyl wrote:
> Sorry to keep on bugging you, but would it be OK for me to strip out
> the LGPL licensing statements?
>
> Or is this software triple licensed?  e.g. Perl (GPL or Artistic), LGPL?

Updated to indicate the module is triple licensed: Perl (Artistic / GPL) & LGPL

Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream-1.22-3.fc5.src.rpm

Note: test suites should not talk to the network as you don't know that the
build hosts aren't completely firewalled.  In any case, the tests don't work at
all for me in mock, probably due to not having a resolver configuration:

PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/buildxml......Cannot resolve compute20.math.uh.edu:  at lib/XML/Stream.pm line
406.
# Looks like you planned 56 tests but only ran 1.
# Looks like your test died just after 1.

My recommendation is to just comment out the "make test" line in %check before
you check in.  I'll assume that's been done for the purposes of this review.

Upstream includes a copy of the LGPL, which you must include in the package.  I
would recommend including the others as well; just do

perldoc perlgpl > LICENSE.GPL
perldoc perlartistic > LICENSE.Artistic

and then include those as %doc along with the included LICENSE.LGPL.

I'd also suggest including any correspondence with the author you have which
might clarify the license issie.

No need to BuildRequires: perl, but not a blocker.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
O license field matches the actual license (please include the author's
"clarification" of the license issue).
X license is open source-compatible.  License text provided but not included.
* source files match upstream:
   ae09400fac17eaea4c9b12283db06881  XML-Stream-1.22.tar.gz
   ae09400fac17eaea4c9b12283db06881  XML-Stream-1.22.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper.  (perl BR is superfluous.)
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64), with test suite disabled.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(XML::Stream) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::Namespace) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::Node) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::Parser) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::Parser::DTD) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::Tree) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::AllOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::AndOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::AttributeOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::ContextOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::EqualOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::FunctionOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::NodeOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::NotEqualOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Op) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::OrOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::PositionOp)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Query) = 1.22
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Value) = 1.22
   perl-XML-Stream = 1.22-3.fc6
  -
   perl >= 0:5.006_001
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8)
   perl(Authen::SASL)
   perl(Carp)
   perl(Encode)
   perl(Exporter)
   perl(FileHandle)
   perl(IO::Select)
   perl(IO::Socket)
   perl(MIME::Base64)
   perl(POSIX)
   perl(Sys::Hostname)
   perl(XML::Stream::Namespace)
   perl(XML::Stream::Parser)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Op)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Query)
   perl(XML::Stream::XPath::Value)
   perl(strict)
   perl(utf8)
   perl(vars)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present but necessarily disabled.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

Updated as requested.

Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-XML-Stream-1.22-4.fc5.src.rpm

OK, everything looks good; the package builds fine without changes and the
license issue is as clear as we can make it.

APPROVED

Built for devel, FE-4, FE-5.  Thanks for the review! :)

Chris is ok with me taking the EL branches : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496891

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-XML-Stream
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: xavierb

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-XML-Stream
New Branches: epel7
Owners: xavierb mmraka

Git done (by process-git-requests).