Bug 477106

Summary: Review Request: unalz - Decompression utility
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED CANTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: cwryu, fedora-package-review, notting, wtogami
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-12-19 05:13:39 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 182235    

Description Orcan Ogetbil 2008-12-19 04:40:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/unalz.spec
SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/unalz-0.62-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description: 
Unalz is a utility to decompress .alz files. It supports bzip2/raw
format transformation, splitting the compressed file into smaller
chunks (alz, a00, a01, ...), extract password protected .alz files,
and CRC checks.

rpmlint is silent. 

Alzip is a commercial software: http://www.altools.com/
unalz is a free decompressor for alzip (Korean): http://www.kipple.pe.kr/win/unalz/
I'm not sure if this software can be shipped with Fedora, hence I'm blocking FE-Legal.

This software normally comes with its own zlip and bzip2. I managed to patch it to use the system's zlib. But it uses a private header file of bzip2 (which is not in bzip2-devel package) and thus (part of) bzip2 has to be built in unalz.
This is the way it is in Ubuntu too.

Comment 1 Warren Togami 2008-12-19 05:13:39 UTC
http://www.kipple.pe.kr/etc/freeware_license/
This is clearly not FOSS.  It contains commercial distribution prohibitions, it allows distribution only unmodified, and says patches must be distributed separately.  It even explicitly mentions "free software" and the GPL and says that it is different from that. 

Sorry.

Comment 2 Changwoo Ryu 2009-02-15 00:53:04 UTC
Now that web page does not refer the non-free "freeware license" (which was actually for win32 exe file distribution) anymore. And new version 0.64 has zlib-license permission notices in the source code, though some files still lack them. 

IMO that ambigously linked piece of text in the homepage is not a clear sign of non-freeness.