Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 197754
Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:36 EST
Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Perl6-Bible/perl-Perl6-Bible.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Perl6-Bible-0.30-1.src.rpm
This Perl module distribution contains all the latest Perl 6 documentation
and a utility called p6bible for viewing it.
This is an odd package; it's a Perl module, but it's really all documentation
except for the tiny viewer script. I'm inclined to just treat it as any other
perl module but it does seem a bit strange.
More troubling is this:
This Copyright applies only to the Perl6::Bible Perl software distribution, not
the documents bundled within.
and the documents within all seem to lack any kind of copyright information.
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is an odd package; it's a Perl module, but it's really all documentation
> except for the tiny viewer script. I'm inclined to just treat it as any other
> perl module but it does seem a bit strange.
It seemed to make sense to work on getting this in along with parrot and pugs
for anyone who wanted to work on Perl 6.
> More troubling is this:
> This Copyright applies only to the Perl6::Bible Perl software distribution, not
> the documents bundled within.
> and the documents within all seem to lack any kind of copyright information.
I hadn't noticed that, but I'm sure that was just a clarification of the
copyright on the package, not a statement about the license. Given that those
documents are *the* formal specification and documentation for Perl 6, I'll be
very surprised if they aren't covered by the usual GPL/Artistic dual license.
So here's the answer that I got from the maintainer on #perl6:
<audreyt> silug: as far as I know they are never really licensed
<audreyt> and nominally I think TPF owns copyright, but I'm not sure
I've sent email to the President of TPF to see if he has any suggestions.
Apparently my first mail was incorrectly addressed, and gmail's spam filter
ate the second one, but TPF President Bill Odom eventually noticed it and gave
me this answer:
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:13:01 -0600
From: "Bill Odom" <email@example.com>
To: "Steven Pritchard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: documentation license question
Okay, here's the definitive word from Allison, who's been immersed in
the legal and licensing side for far longer than any one person should
ever have to be:
On 10/31/06, Allison Randal <email@example.com> wrote:
>The Perl 6 Bible is the Apocalypses, Exegeses, and Synopses.
>They'll be under the same terms as the production release of Perl 6,
> - they are covered by the author's contributor agreement to TPF
> - the compilation copyright is owned by TPF
> - authors retain their individual copyright in individual pieces
> - Artistic 2.0 license
Does that give you what you need, or should I do some more digging?
This all looks good; can you cut a new package with that information included
(as a README.licensing file or something) and I'll do a quick review.
Oops, forgot about this...
I almost forgot about it too.
* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream, but
appropriate clarification is included in the package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none needed)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl-Perl6-Bible = 0.30-2.fc7
perl >= 0:5.000
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=2, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.06 CPU)
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* This is mostly content, not code, but it is permissible content (package
* This is pretty much all documentation; a -docs subpackage would be kind of dumb.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. (Most of
the content is not marked %doc, as then the package would indeed be useless.)
Imported into CVS, branches created, and built.