Bug 2368379

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9077527
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368379-ldraw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077527-ldraw/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Just one change, I think it would be better to reverse the dependency and avoid the `Recommends`. The download link is also weird and unversioned, but unless you can contact upstream about it, I guess it's good as-is.

There is the license of this, which I am uncertain about, maybe you can have the license team review this?

(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #2)
> Just one change, I think it would be better to reverse the dependency and
> avoid the `Recommends`. The download link is also weird and unversioned, but
> unless you can contact upstream about it, I guess it's good as-is.
> 
> There is the license of this, which I am uncertain about, maybe you can have
> the license team review this?

Are you just speaking of CC-BY-4.0 AND CC-BY-2.0? Both are allowed for content in Fedora, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/#_allowed_content_licenses, and this package would appear to comprise only content, so I think that part should be OK. It would make sense to add a spec-file comment above License pointing out that CAreadme.txt contains a detailed explanation of which files are covered under which license(s).

While the stated licenses for the models themselves are clearly allowed, I do think it would be worth checking whether or not Fedora Legal is concerned about this package being encumbered by any IP rights Lego may have in the designs that the models describe.

One other point: The registered trademark symbol ® MUST NOT appear in the package summary or description: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in_summary_or_description

Thanks Ben for your additional feedback.

I didn't have something specific about the license that concerned, just suspicion that it would be a sensitive package to review to make sure no patents are attached, weird copyright agreements between Lego and IP holders, and whatnot. I wouldn't know what to look out for, that's why I kept it open-ended.