Spec URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS.spec SRPM URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS-1.07-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This module can be used, along with a CSS::Parse::* module, to parse CSS data and represent it as a tree of objects. Using a CSS::Adaptor::* module, the CSS data tree can then be transformed into other formats.
- iconv'ing should be moved from %install to %prep for --short-circuit build sanity. - BuildRequires: perl(Test::Simple) missing. - Including examples/ in %doc would look like a good idea. - License: Artistic clarified: I don't think that's the case. The package's README says "License: Perl Artistic License" and AFAIK that's not the clarified one, it's the original which is not OK in Fedora. If that's correct, it's a blocker. Ask upstream to move to Artistic 2.0 or the clarified one? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
> - iconv'ing should be moved from %install to %prep for --short-circuit build sanity. Fixed > - BuildRequires: perl(Test::Simple) missing. Fixed. > - Including examples/ in %doc would look like a good idea. Fixed. > Ask upstream to move to Artistic 2.0 or the clarified one? Done, wait and hope :-) SPEC: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS-1.07-2.fc7.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1) >The package's > README says "License: Perl Artistic License" and AFAIK that's not the clarified > one, it's the original which is not OK in Fedora. Ville, this package is noarch and therefore doesn't link against anything GPL'ed. => There is no license violation.
I already asked same license name to spot in PM and he told me for CPAN modules its allowed to use "GPL+ or Artistic."
(In reply to comment #3) > Ville, this package is noarch and therefore doesn't link against anything GPL'ed. > => There is no license violation. Linking does not matter in this case because the original Artistic license, which is the license for the source code in this package, is not accepted in Fedora (by itself), no matter what it is linked to or not. (In reply to comment #4) > I already asked same license name to spot in PM and he told me for CPAN modules > its allowed to use "GPL+ or Artistic." That's incorrect. Or more specifically, it's a too broad statement - "GPL+ or Artistic" is what we can use when upstream says "Licensed under the same license as Perl itself", which is very common for CPAN stuff. But in this case, upstream specifically says "Perl Artistic License" (which is not the same thing as "same License as Perl" which would be the "GPL+ or Artistic" case) and doesn't mention GPL at all, we cannot go ahead and claim it's GPL or add GPL to it.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Ville, this package is noarch and therefore doesn't link against anything GPL'ed. > > => There is no license violation. > > Linking does not matter in this case because the original Artistic license, > which is the license for the source code in this package, is not accepted in > Fedora (by itself), no matter what it is linked to or not. Zealotry - Show me which laws and/or licenses, in which country, using a free license such as the Artistic license in a scripted languages breaks?
The people who are in charge of the Fedora licensing rules are responsible for defending them for you, not people who act according to them in package reviews. Contact spot and/or the fedora-legal-list if you have issues with the rules. Regarding the actual packaging, 1.07-2.fc7 looks ready to me but I won't personally approve it before the license issue is sorted out.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Ville, this package is noarch and therefore doesn't link against anything GPL'ed. > > => There is no license violation. > > Linking does not matter in this case because the original Artistic license, > which is the license for the source code in this package, is not accepted in > Fedora (by itself), no matter what it is linked to or not. > > (In reply to comment #4) > > I already asked same license name to spot in PM and he told me for CPAN modules > > its allowed to use "GPL+ or Artistic." > > That's incorrect. Or more specifically, it's a too broad statement - "GPL+ or > Artistic" is what we can use when upstream says "Licensed under the same license > as Perl itself", which is very common for CPAN stuff. But in this case, > upstream specifically says "Perl Artistic License" (which is not the same thing > as "same License as Perl" which would be the "GPL+ or Artistic" case) and > doesn't mention GPL at all, we cannot go ahead and claim it's GPL or add GPL to it. Sorry. My misunderstandings. I understood above thing correctly now.
Any progress on this review?
It's been another month and this ticket is blocking three others. Could we get a status update?
> It's been another month and this ticket is blocking three others. > Could we get a status update? I have sent a mail to Spot (Sept 27 2007) and to the authors (Allen Day and Cal Henderson). No reply yet. Will resend. BTW: Debian Lenny includes this package as libcss-perl: http://packages.debian.org/source/lenny/libcss-perl Looking at the patch (link from the libcss-perl page) http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/libc/libcss-perl/libcss-perl_1.07-1.diff.gz they seems to believe the license is disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the GNU GPL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#PerlLicense From the diff: +++ libcss-perl-1.07/debian/copyright @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +This is the debian package for the CSS module. +It was created by Alejandro Garrido Mota <garridomota> using dh-make-perl. + +Upstream homepage: http://search.cpan.org/~iamcal/CSS-1.07/ + +Copyright: + + Copyright (C) 2001-2002, Allen Day <allenday> + Copyright (C) 2003-2004, Cal Henderson <cal>. + +License: + + This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under + the same terms as Perl itself. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without any warranty; + without even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. + + Perl is distributed under your choice of the GNU General Public License or + the Artistic License. + + The complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in + /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL and the Artistic Licence can be found + in /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic. + +The upstream author is: Allen Day <allenday> and Cal Henderson <cal>
It would be nice to know where the Debian maintainer found that statement; the README file in the upstream tarball states quite clearly: Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Allen Day <allenday> Copyright (C) 2003 Cal Henderson <cal> License: Perl Artistic License and I don't see that contradicted by any other license statements elsewhere in the code. Older versions have the same statement, without one of the copyright holders. I guess you could make the argument that they somehow meant "Perl Artistic License" to mean "the license that Perl has", but I think that would be somewhat disingenuous.
any progress?
> any progress? Yes, spot has sent an email to Cal, no news that front yet. If he don't reply soon, I don't know what to do. Maybe move the package to rpmfusion?
I guess time to move this package to rpmfusion. Do you get any progress ?
(In reply to comment #15) > I guess time to move this package to rpmfusion. Do you get any progress ? Nothing from the authors yet. Seems like rpmfusion not is open for business, will hold this ticket open for a while.
Why keep this ticket (or the two which depend on it) open when the software is not acceptable for Fedora?
Hoping for a answer? Well, well closing now.
Reopening. I finally got a hold of Cal, and he has agreed to relicense CSS.pm to resolve this issue.
Great spot! Thanks a lot!
1.08 is released, and it is dual licensed, GPL+ or Artistic (just like Perl). http://search.cpan.org/~iamcal/CSS-1.08/
Updated package: - 1.08 - Fix license - Simplify find options - Fix file endings spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/html2wiki/perl-CSS-1.08-1.fc8.src.rpm
"find ... -delete" won't work in EL4 so in case you have plans to ship this package in EPEL4, I'd suggest reverting back to the "find ... -exec ..." versions. BuildRequires: glibc-common is pretty much superfluous, it's brought in by a lot of things in the minimal build root set. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30-2 The shipped examples operate on t/css_simple so I think it would be good to ship it as examples/t/css_simple in docs so that the examples work as is when invoked from the examples/ dir. All of the above are just non-blocker suggestions, approved.
> All of the above are just non-blocker suggestions, approved. Great, thanks! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-CSS Short Description: Object oriented access to Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Owners: terjeros Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
ship css_simple, built on F-7,8,9 and rawhide, pushed to bodhi for F-7 and F-8. Closing.