Spec URL: https://pagure.io/leo/rpms-wip/raw/master/f/rust-finl_unicode/rust-finl_unicode.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/rpms-wip/srpm-builds/06667390/rust-finl_unicode-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl (categories and grapheme segmentation). Fedora Account System Username: leo Scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109237762
There's a couple things in this crate that are potentially problematic, and likely can't be shipped in this form (from "worst" problem to "least bad"): - The code in src/data/*.rs appears to have been generated from Unicode data. In most circumstances, that means the generated code is licensed under the terms of the Unicode-DFS-2016 license. The code only has a generic "this is generated, do not edit" header, but doesn't state *what* the code was generated *from*. If it is indeed the case that it was generated from Unicode data, the crate's license metadata in Cargo.toml metadata must be amended to "(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016" (similar to what the https://crates.io/crates/unicode-ident crate does). Additionally, the crate would need to carry the actual Unicode license text (see also the GitHub project for the unicode-ident crate). You will likely need to ask the upstream project for clarification on these points. - The resources in "resources/benchmark-texts" are covered under a variety of licenses (Project Gutenberg, CC-BY-SA 3.0, Apache-2.0, Unicode, ...), not all of which are always permissible for package contents. I think at the very least, the texts from Project Gutenberg need to be expunged from the package entirely (i.e. a "cleaned" source tarball needs to be created without these files), since it is likely that Fedora is not allowed to distributed these files. It appears that these files are only read by benchmarks, so the "resources" directory should be removable without affecting the functionality of the crate.
Additionally, this package has already been submitted for review here: #2246779 (where apparently the problematic contents were missed).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2246779 ***