Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 464804
Review Request: hunspell-fy - Frisian hunspell dictionary
Last modified: 2008-10-01 18:18:08 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fy.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fy-2.0.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: Frisian hunspell dictionary
+ package builds in mock.
Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=853580
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream.
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ defattr usage is correct.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
+ Not a GUI app.
I am not sure about license of this package. Also not sure how to read this language/convert to English. Link given in fy.dic points to LGPLv3+ but in fy.dic it stated only as LGPL.
I tried to follow our own documents on this, i.e.
"1. What does the code say? If it specifies a version, that's what it is."
and it doesn't :-)
"2. Does the code conflict with itself? (file1.c and file2.c are compiled together but have different licensing)"
"3. What does the documentation say? ... NOTE: COPYING does not count as documentation, since the author(s) didn't write it"
Just a link in this case to the GNU LGPL page, which always has the latest version available on it.
"4. If neither the source, nor the upstream composed documentation says anything about the license version, then it could be under _ANY_ version of the GPL. The version listed in COPYING is irrelevant from this perspective. Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is COPYING, we'll guess COPYING is accurate. "
and from the other page we have...
"A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL."
So I followed the logic of 4. and that other snippet of "it is under any LGPL license because it the source and documentation don't specify an exact LGPL version" which gave me a output tag of "LGPLv2+ "
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: hunspell-fy
Short Description: Frisian hunspell dictionary