Spec Name or Url: http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/fcgi.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/fcgi-2.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: FastCGI is a language independent, scalable, open extension to CGI that provides high performance without the limitations of server specific APIs.
Is this really BSD-ish? Doesn't look very free to me: Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply.
Where did you get that? LICENSE.TERMS shipping with the tarball is: --- This FastCGI application library source and object code (the "Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files. Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply. OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS". OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION. --- This is more or less creative commons "by" clause.
(In reply to comment #2) > Where did you get that? LICENSE.TERMS shipping with the tarball is: (snip BSD-ish license) Curious. I got it from http://fastcgi.com/mod_fastcgi/docs/LICENSE.TERMS which I believed to be a copy of what was in the tarball.
Note the "mod_fastcgi" in the URL. :) You want: http://www.fastcgi.com/cvs/fcgi2/LICENSE.TERMS
Looks good. The only issue I've noticed is that the naming guidelines assume all perl modules are in CPAN, this one seems to be an exception. The "perl-fcgi" name is unlikely to clash with CPAN's FCGI/* hierarchy and thus probably OK. Accepted.
(In reply to comment #5) > The only issue I've noticed is that the naming guidelines assume all perl > modules are in CPAN, this one seems to be an exception. > The "perl-fcgi" name is unlikely > to clash with CPAN's FCGI/* hierarchy and thus probably OK. Hmm, what I dislike about the perl subpackage it being called perl-fcgi. IMO, it should be called perl-FCGI, because it provides perl(FCGI).
Oh... CPAN's FCGI-0.67 is the same module that is included in this package, I was confused by the different version number. I'm sorry I have missed that. So it indeed should be perl-FCGI, and it should probably be built as a separate source package, not from the sources bundled with the C libfcgi.
Hmm... Seeing as it's a bundle of a separate project, are there any objections if I drop the perl subpackage altogether? I don't use much perl, so tracking a CPAN package would be troublesome for me.
I certainly wouldn't mind.
(In reply to comment #9) > I certainly wouldn't mind. I guess you are aware that perl-FCGI quite popular?
(In reply to comment #10) > I guess you are aware that perl-FCGI quite popular? Well, splitting the packages is the technically correct solution and I can't force Konstantin to package perl-FCGI. If it is so popular, somebody will package it eventually.
Right, all I meant was "let someone else do it," since I'm highly unlikely to use the Perl bindings, and therefore won't be able to do any useful troubleshooting or testing. :) C library, on the other hand, I will be using quite a bit. I'll re-spec the packages and put them up for one more glance before importing them.
There was no activity for one year here and I submitted another review of this package as #231315 by accident - do you still want to package fcgi (you can use my spec If you want) or shall I close this review?
Please go right ahead -- I'm not running fcgi any more, so won't be a good maintainer. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 231315 ***