Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ExpatImpl/ExpatImpl-devel.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ExpatImpl/ExpatImpl-devel-1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: A C++ wrapper for the expat XML parsing library I need this package for another package I wish to submit later.
The spec file is not available. Also, this package should be named expatimpl (with a -devel subpackage that contains the headers).
* Would be fine to name it "ExpatImpl" with no main package but a -devel subpackage. There are no guidelines that require the name to be converted to lower-case. * Licensing situation is unclear. Upstream .zip doesn't contain or mention the BSD licence that is specified in the .spec file. There's just a copyright notice in the single C++ header file. In the upstream msg boards the authors writes: | By definition, all code posted to CodeProject is free to use. | These days I use the BSD non-adware license. | So feel free to use the code as you wish. | | [...] | | Tim Smith "Free to use" doesn't imply "BSD". Though, if you choose the BSD licence for the Fedora package, an added explanation would be good.
(In reply to comment #2) > * Would be fine to name it "ExpatImpl" with no main package but a -devel > subpackage. There are no guidelines that require the name to be converted to > lower-case. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity although in this case the name of the tarball is ExpatImpl and thus ExpatImpl is OK to use as the package name. To the first point: doesn't this package include a library of some sort? > * Licensing situation is unclear. Upstream .zip doesn't contain or mention the > BSD licence that is specified in the .spec file. There's just a copyright > notice in the single C++ header file. In the upstream msg boards the authors > writes: > > | By definition, all code posted to CodeProject is free to use. > | These days I use the BSD non-adware license. > | So feel free to use the code as you wish. > | > | [...] > | > | Tim Smith > > "Free to use" doesn't imply "BSD". > > Though, if you choose the BSD licence for the Fedora package, an added > explanation would be good. "Free to use" doesn't imply distributability either. Unless upstream puts a clear license in the tarball (or state that the code is public domain), there's no way this package will be included in Fedora. A message board message is not enough.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity As I wrote before, the guidelines do not require the package to get a lower-case name. The "ExpatImpl" spelling is used also throughout the C++ header file, in the header filename, and in the wrapper class name. And btw, the Expat project refers to itself as "Expat". ;) > "Free to use" doesn't imply distributability either. Let me repeat from my previous comment: Licensing situation is unclear.
Sorry for the delay, but I've been trying to reach the author for license clarification. No response yet, and I see other unanswered attempts on the message board to get a clear statement out of the author. I'm going to consider my options, but at this point I guess we have to consider this review dead in the water on legal grounds. :-( With regards to comment #1, the spec file link now works. Also, this package does not include a library of any kind. It is purely a header file that maps the C expat headers into C++ classes with inline code. And, finally, it's really old and doesn't include a bunch of stuff from newer versions of expat. Given all that, I'm really tempted to write my own and give it a real open source license. Give me a couple of days to think this over. If I decide to go with writing my own, I'll close this review bug. Thanks for the comments.
Forget this package. There's a much better, more up-to-date, and definitely free C++ wrapper for expat. I'll port the application I'm working with over to that wrapper. See bug #499913 for more information.