Bug 616292
Summary: | Review Request: pekwm-themes - Pekwm themes collection | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Germán Racca <gracca> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | christoph.wickert, fedora-package-review, itsme_410, mario.blaettermann, notting, tcallawa |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | christoph.wickert:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-10-20 21:17:58 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: | 182235 |
Description
Germán Racca
2010-07-20 03:49:42 UTC
As I have already reviewed pekwm, I will review this too. Thanks Christoph! Any news with this packages ? (In reply to comment #3) > Any news with this packages ? Christoph, please, you have the last word about this package. As mentioned earlier in private mail (but unfortunately not in this review request, sorry) the main problem with this package is/was the licensing: The source tarball is a collection of themes and none contains any license information. In addition to that, the Source0 URL is in AUR Linux invalid and upstream's homepage has disappeared. I don't think we can do anything about this. Hello, In Debian, this set of themes is provided as GPL-3. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/pekwm-themes/pekwm-themes_1.0.5-1/pekwm-themes.copyright Again, the link to the homepage and upstream source is dead. Even if somebody claims that the content is GPLv3, we have no way to confirm or info on authorship. Hi, if you check all the "theme" files, they all contain "License: GPL": % grep -r License pekwm-themes/ pekwm-themes/clearlooks/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/ubuntu_human/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/leopard/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/default-blue/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/tango/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/kde4_oxygen/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/nimbus/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/gilouche/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/default-brown/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/dust/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/kde4/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/default-nice/theme:# License: GPL pekwm-themes/vista_black/theme:# License: GPL Also, pekwm-themes has just been moved from AUR (unsupported) to [community] (official) in Arch Linux, as GPL. (In reply to comment #8) > Hi, if you check all the "theme" files, they all contain "License: GPL": > > % grep -r License pekwm-themes/ > pekwm-themes/clearlooks/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/ubuntu_human/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/leopard/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/default-blue/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/tango/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/kde4_oxygen/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/nimbus/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/gilouche/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/default-brown/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/dust/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/kde4/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/default-nice/theme:# License: GPL > pekwm-themes/vista_black/theme:# License: GPL This means two themes (tigris and xfce4) lack a license header. And the ones that have one all refer to http://adrinux.wordpress.com which no longer exists. > Also, pekwm-themes has just been moved from AUR (unsupported) to [community] > (official) in Arch Linux, as GPL. "GPL" is not a valid license for Fedora. We need to know what version it is (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and whether is it that version only or "any later version" (GPLv2+ or GPLv3+). How does Arch deal with this? Do they distribute content with unclear licensing? In order to have this package in Fedora, we need to - know the exact licenses of the themes - have a valid upstream URL - have a valid source URL, either for the all-in-one tarball for the individual themes - know the name of the author Last but not we usually don't package dead software. I know things are different for noarch content that is not going to change, but still I'd feel much more comfortable if I knew we had an active upstream. GPLv3 was released by FSF on 29 June 2007, so I would say it's safe to assume that for themes released shortly after (ie. Nov 18 2008), GPL means GPL2. Yes, this is an assumption. However, even if the license is GPL2 or GPL3, it should be fine to distribute with any sensible Linux distro, so I fail to see the importance of nailing this. We're talking about publicly available PekWM themes here, clearly labelled with "GPL". Arch Linux usually deal with licensing issues with a healthy dose of pragmatism and common sense. If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site? Here are links to all the themes, except for default-blue, default-brown, default-nice and tango (but there's no reason to assume they are not GPL as well. Themes without links could be excluded at install-time, for example): http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Clearlooks?content=93428 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Ubuntu+Human?content=93435 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Leopard?content=93433 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+KDE4+Oxygen?content=93432 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Nimbus?content=93434 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+gilouche?content=93430 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+dust?content=93429 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+KDE4?content=93431 http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Vista+Black?content=93436 Here's the archived upstream URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20100111002411/http://adrinux.wordpress.com/pekwm-themes/ Note also that this package is included in at least Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and Arch Linux. It would be a testament to the ability of Fedora to overcome bureaucracy to finally include this package. (In reply to comment #10) > GPLv3 was released by FSF on 29 June 2007, so I would say it's safe to assume > that for themes released shortly after (ie. Nov 18 2008), GPL means GPL2. Yes, > this is an assumption. GPLv2 already includes the following clause: "If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version”, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Therefor we cannot even make the assumption you suggested. > However, even if the license is GPL2 or GPL3, it should > be fine to distribute with any sensible Linux distro, so I fail to see the > importance of nailing this. We're talking about publicly available PekWM themes > here, clearly labelled with "GPL". We are not just another distro, we do distinguish between versions and need to mark the packages accordingly. > If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if > it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to > be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site? I'd be willing to risk this, but this requires that somebody actually tries to contact upstream. > Here are links to all the themes, except for default-blue, default-brown, > default-nice and tango (but there's no reason to assume they are not GPL as > well. Themes without links could be excluded at install-time, for example): As Fedora also distributes SRPMS we would need to remove he packages and re-create the Source0 tarball. Or we just use individual tarballs for each theme. > Here's the archived upstream URL: > http://web.archive.org/web/20100111002411/http://adrinux.wordpress.com/pekwm-themes/ There were no changes since 2008. Not sure if we should really have unmaintained content in Fedora. > Note also that this package is included in at least Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE > and Arch Linux. > > It would be a testament to the ability of Fedora to overcome bureaucracy to > finally include this package. While I generally try to remove red tape, I don't think we should allow messy licensing. I'll let Spot decide how how to deal with this. Anything marked internally with "GPL" should be treated as "GPL+" in the absence of any other data. Anything unmarked should be treated as license unknown, and assumed to be non-free. We do not use other distributions packaging licensing as canonical license sources unless they have documented evidence to justify the licensing (and Debian is traditionally quite poor in this regard). (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if > > it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to > > be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site? > > I'd be willing to risk this, but this requires that somebody actually tries to > contact upstream. I have sent several emails to the author but never got an answer. Germán. Any updates here? No, it is a problem of licenses :( I beg to disagree. I think it's about distro identity: "We are not just another distro, we do distinguish between versions and need to mark the packages accordingly.". This is in contrast with the above mentioned distros that do include pekwm-themes. Unless someone can clarify the licenses on those unmarked files, they cannot go into Fedora. I'm fairly confident that if I were to raise that issue with most of the other distributions, they would pull the package (or at least remove those files). Repeatedly pointing out "But Mom, Billy just jumped off the bridge, why can't I?" is silly. This issue is only blocked on licensing, nothing more. The comparison with including a low-profile package like pekwm-themes with jumping off a bridge is silly. It's blocked by distro identity and bureaucracy, which is fine. I think everything points to that this ticket can be closed. The profile of the package is irrelevant. It is not blocked at all on "distro identity". It is blocked because there are some files for which the licensing is unclear. The ones marked as GPL are not at issue here, it is the ones which are unmarked that cannot be included as is. Also, considering that you appear to be neither the reviewer nor the packager here, I intend to disregard your assertions of where "everything" is pointing. I am the reviewer and also the sponsor of the package submitter. In order to move this forward I suggest to - either only package the themes where we know the author and their licenses - or close this bug. I suggest package the themes with known authors and licenses. What are the themes missing authors/licenses? (In reply to comment #20) > I am the reviewer and also the sponsor of the package submitter. In order to > move this forward I suggest to > - either only package the themes where we know the author and their licenses > - or close this bug. I didn't know I could package *only* the themes with known licenses, if I knew, I would have done it before, but now I'm not more interested in working on this package. (In reply to comment #21) > I suggest package the themes with known authors and licenses. What are the > themes missing authors/licenses? Globe Trotter, Are you interested in this package? You could take my spec file and open a new review request if you wish. It's been more than a year after the last response from the package submitter. And he indicated to no longer want to work on it. Shouldn't we close this ticket now? Thanks Mario, I'm closing this review request. |