Spec Name or Url: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SPECS/xfce4-battery-plugin.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SRPMS/xfce4-battery-plugin-0.3.0-2.fc4.src.rpm Description: A battery monitor plugin for the Xfce panel, compatible with APM and ACPI. - rplint is clean - licese BSD (included)
Good: - rpmlint ok on both fc4/devel - package meets naming guidelines - package builds fine on both fc4/devel (x86) - no .a files. - source matches upstream. - works on my fc4 laptop. Needswork: - Are you sure the license is BSD? The source files have LGPL headers, but the COPYING file looks BSD. Can you get upstream to clarify? It could be dual LGPL/BSD or something. Nits: - make might need to be 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' I can't seem to (yet) reassign this bug to approve it, my fedorabugs group membership might still be propigating to the cvs box.
(In reply to comment #1) > > Needswork: > - Are you sure the license is BSD? The source files have LGPL headers, but the > COPYING file looks BSD. Can you get upstream to clarify? It could be dual > LGPL/BSD or something. I have contacted upstream but no reply by now. Styin tuned. I will now push the GPL licensed goodies first (#173543, #173544, #173546, #173548 - #173553), then have a closer look at the BSD ones. > > Nits: > - make might need to be 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' D'oh. Of course, will fix that before biuld.
Reply from Upstream: Benedikt Meurer (author of xfce4-sample-plugin) said that the COPYING (BSD) file is only a relict from his sample plugin and since LGPL is more restrictive it should be applied to the whole package. Edscott Wilson Garcia (one of the programs authors) wrote: "Yes. Libraries are LGPL, as released in such manner by their initial author. The program source file is BSD, since that is what the initial author (Nicholas Penwarden) thought best." Debian ships this package as BSD http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xfce4-battery-plugin/xfce4-battery-plugin_0.3.0-1/xfce4-battery-plugin.copyright So should we release it LGPL? Do I have to replace the COPYING file then?
Since the package has both LGPL (the acpi/apm lib files) and BSD (the main battstat.c file), it should have both in the spec License... BSD and LGPL. I would leave the BSD liscence in the COPYING file (as it is upstream), but perhaps add a LGPL copying file in as well? Then, spec can have: License: BSD and LGPL
Ok, here we go: New SRPM: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SRPMS/xfce4-battery-plugin-0.3.0-3.fc4.src.rpm SPEC: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SPECS/xfce4-battery-plugin.spec
(In reply to comment #4) > Since the package has both LGPL (the acpi/apm lib files) and BSD (the main > battstat.c file), it should have both in the spec License... BSD and LGPL. > > I would leave the BSD liscence in the COPYING file (as it is upstream), but > perhaps add a LGPL copying file in as well? > > Then, spec can have: License: BSD and LGPL Sorry, nope. If binary package having been built from sources containing [L]GPL'ed and other licensed source files, automatically is [L]GPL'ed as a whole.
> Sorry, nope. If binary package having been built from sources containing > [L]GPL'ed and other licensed source files, automatically is [L]GPL'ed > as a whole. Really? Do you have a cite or other information on that? libxfce4util needs to be changed to only LGPL if thats the case... also I see libcap in core has "BSD-like and LGPL". Also if thats the case we should update the wiki to mention that in License discussion and reviews. Also, Christoph: xfce4-battery-plugin is missing libxfcegui4-devel as a BuildRequires.
(In reply to comment #7) > > Also, Christoph: xfce4-battery-plugin is missing libxfcegui4-devel as a > BuildRequires. Arghh, yes. I've fixed that in the specfile but I don't want to rebuild the srpm before the license issue is clear.
(In reply to comment #7) > > Also, Christoph: xfce4-battery-plugin is missing libxfcegui4-devel as a > BuildRequires. Correcting my prevouis comment #8 Nope, sorry, it's there. Both in the srpm and in the specfile on the ftp server.
(In reply to comment #7) > > Sorry, nope. If binary package having been built from sources containing > > [L]GPL'ed and other licensed source files, automatically is [L]GPL'ed > > as a whole. More precisely the whole is redistributed under the terms of the LGPL. But the BSD licenced files remain BSD licenced. So it is more informative to put BSD and LGPL in the licence. The BSD copyright/licence statement is added in the %doc section (it is the COPYING file), there is a LGPL so things are fine. Incidentally the panel-plugin/libacpi.c has a GPL header?
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > > Sorry, nope. If binary package having been built from sources containing > > > [L]GPL'ed and other licensed source files, automatically is [L]GPL'ed > > > as a whole. > > More precisely the whole is redistributed under the terms of the LGPL. Then "License" field in the rpm spec imho should only be "LGPL" because it stands for the whole package. Otherwise someone might get the idea that the whole package is under a Dual-BSD/LGPL license. And thats wrong afaics.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > > Sorry, nope. If binary package having been built from sources containing > > > > [L]GPL'ed and other licensed source files, automatically is [L]GPL'ed > > > > as a whole. > > > > More precisely the whole is redistributed under the terms of the LGPL. > > Then "License" field in the rpm spec imho should only be "LGPL" because it > stands for the whole package. Otherwise someone might get the idea that the > whole package is under a Dual-BSD/LGPL license. And thats wrong afaics. Exactly. Though each source file can apply different licenses, the final application binary is being linked against files having been compiled from LGPL'ed sources. Therefore, the final binary application is LGPL'ed, though it's sources are licensed BSD. => I.e. the binary package must be shipped/relicensed under the [L]GPL.
(In reply to comment #11) > Then "License" field in the rpm spec imho should only be "LGPL" because it > stands for the whole package. Otherwise someone might get the idea that the > whole package is under a Dual-BSD/LGPL license. And thats wrong afaics. Yep, that's true. It's in fact better to avoid people thinking that's it's dual licencing. As there are the 2 licences in %doc, it should be enough to have somebody interested get the srpm and look at the file headers.
ok, that all makes sense I guess... So, the package License should be "LGPL". With that fixed, I see no other blockers... APPROVED.
Successfully compiled on all arches and branches.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xfce4-battery-plugin New Branches: epel7 Owners: cwickert InitialCC: nonamedotc
Git done (by process-git-requests).