Bug 491790
| Summary: | Review Request: mediawiki-SpamBlacklist - An extension to provide a Spam Blacklist management system | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | John Guthrie <mathguthrie> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, tcallawa |
| 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: | 2010-02-09 00:26:32 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
John Guthrie
2009-03-24 04:06:02 UTC
I should make a note regarding the value that I put in for the license field. I have set the license field to "Freely distributable without restrictions" on the basis of the following URLs: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:SpamBlacklist#Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/Free_software I am also using the README file that is contained in the package as part of the basis for this value of the License tag. I have also sent an email to the author to get a better clarification as well. Did you receive clarification from the author? Many of these mediawiki plugins suffer from terribly confusing licensing status. This one seems especially bad as the only thing we can really go on, the README file, says: This extension and this documentation was written by Tim Starling and is ambiguously licensed. I would argue that without clarification, there is no way this can go into Fedora. It doesn't even seem that we have redistribution rights. I guess I'll block FE-Legal. I'm inclined to agree with Tibbs's assessment. There are two points to be made here: 1. There is no license on this code (and it is code, not content). Without a license, the code is non-free. 2. "Freely distributable without restrictions" is not an acceptable license for Fedora code. You should get specific licensing terms from the copyright holder (aka, the author). Without that, this cannot move forward. His individual views on free software aside, the way that copyright law works is that the only right we are given simply by having access to his software is the right to use. We do not have the right to copy, modify, or redistribute. We need him to explicitly grant us (and anyone who gets the code from us) those rights. Alas, I have not received any kind of response from the author as yet. I will try to contact him again. If I still don't get a response, then we'll probably have to close the review request. Just following up on this one, did you get any kind of response from the upstream author? I'm going ahead and closing this given the AWOL status of the submitter. Should anyone wish to resubmit, please address the legal issue first. |