This service will be undergoing maintenance at 00:00 UTC, 2016-09-28. It is expected to last about 1 hours
Bug 616292 - Review Request: pekwm-themes - Pekwm themes collection
Review Request: pekwm-themes - Pekwm themes collection
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Christoph Wickert
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-07-19 23:49 EDT by Germán Racca
Modified: 2013-10-20 17:42 EDT (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-10-20 17:17:58 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
cwickert: fedora‑review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Germán Racca 2010-07-19 23:49:42 EDT
Spec: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/pekwm-themes.spec

SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/pekwm-themes-1.0.5-2.src.rpm

Description:
A set of themes for Pekwm windows manager with ports of well known interfaces.

$ rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS,RPMS/noarch}/pekwm-themes*
SPECS/pekwm-themes.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
SPECS/pekwm-themes.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
pekwm-themes.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
pekwm-themes.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
pekwm-themes.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Comment 1 Christoph Wickert 2010-07-29 19:28:50 EDT
As I have already reviewed pekwm, I will review this too.
Comment 2 Germán Racca 2010-07-31 19:08:00 EDT
Thanks Christoph!
Comment 3 Damien Durand 2012-02-03 13:42:46 EST
Any news with this packages ?
Comment 4 Germán Racca 2012-02-03 13:53:36 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> Any news with this packages ?

Christoph, please, you have the last word about this package.
Comment 5 Christoph Wickert 2012-02-04 07:46:53 EST
As mentioned earlier in private mail (but unfortunately not in this review request, sorry) the main problem with this package is/was the licensing: The source tarball is a collection of themes and none contains any license information. 

In addition to that, the Source0 URL is in AUR Linux invalid and upstream's homepage has disappeared. I don't think we can do anything about this.
Comment 6 Damien Durand 2012-02-04 08:06:33 EST
Hello,

In Debian, this set of themes is provided as GPL-3.

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/pekwm-themes/pekwm-themes_1.0.5-1/pekwm-themes.copyright
Comment 7 Christoph Wickert 2012-02-04 09:16:57 EST
Again, the link to the homepage and upstream source is dead. Even if somebody claims that the content is GPLv3, we have no way to confirm or info on authorship.
Comment 8 Alexander Rødseth 2012-02-14 04:00:49 EST
Hi, if you check all the "theme" files, they all contain "License: GPL":

% grep -r License pekwm-themes/
pekwm-themes/clearlooks/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/ubuntu_human/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/leopard/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/default-blue/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/tango/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/kde4_oxygen/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/nimbus/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/gilouche/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/default-brown/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/dust/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/kde4/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/default-nice/theme:# License: GPL
pekwm-themes/vista_black/theme:# License: GPL

Also, pekwm-themes has just been moved from AUR (unsupported) to [community] (official) in Arch Linux, as GPL.
Comment 9 Christoph Wickert 2012-02-14 05:14:28 EST
(In reply to comment #8)
> Hi, if you check all the "theme" files, they all contain "License: GPL":
> 
> % grep -r License pekwm-themes/
> pekwm-themes/clearlooks/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/ubuntu_human/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/leopard/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/default-blue/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/tango/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/kde4_oxygen/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/nimbus/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/gilouche/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/default-brown/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/dust/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/kde4/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/default-nice/theme:# License: GPL
> pekwm-themes/vista_black/theme:# License: GPL

This means two themes (tigris and xfce4) lack a license header. And the ones that have one all refer to http://adrinux.wordpress.com which no longer exists.

> Also, pekwm-themes has just been moved from AUR (unsupported) to [community]
> (official) in Arch Linux, as GPL.

"GPL" is not a valid license for Fedora. We need to know what version it is (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and whether is it that version only or "any later version" (GPLv2+ or GPLv3+).

How does Arch deal with this? Do they distribute content with unclear licensing?

In order to have this package in Fedora, we need to
- know the exact licenses of the themes
- have a valid upstream URL
- have a valid source URL, either for the all-in-one tarball for the individual themes
- know the name of the author

Last but not we usually don't package dead software. I know things are different for noarch content that is not going to change, but still I'd feel much more comfortable if I knew we had an active upstream.
Comment 10 Alexander Rødseth 2012-02-20 11:30:32 EST
GPLv3 was released by FSF on 29 June 2007, so I would say it's safe to assume that for themes released shortly after (ie. Nov 18 2008), GPL means GPL2. Yes, this is an assumption. However, even if the license is GPL2 or GPL3, it should be fine to distribute with any sensible Linux distro, so I fail to see the importance of nailing this. We're talking about publicly available PekWM themes here, clearly labelled with "GPL".

Arch Linux usually deal with licensing issues with a healthy dose of pragmatism and common sense.

If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site?

Here are links to all the themes, except for default-blue, default-brown, default-nice and tango (but there's no reason to assume they are not GPL as well. Themes without links could be excluded at install-time, for example):

http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Clearlooks?content=93428
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Ubuntu+Human?content=93435
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Leopard?content=93433
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+KDE4+Oxygen?content=93432
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Nimbus?content=93434
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+gilouche?content=93430
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+dust?content=93429
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+KDE4?content=93431
http://box-look.org/content/show.php/Pekwm+Vista+Black?content=93436

Here's the archived upstream URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100111002411/http://adrinux.wordpress.com/pekwm-themes/

Note also that this package is included in at least Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and Arch Linux.

It would be a testament to the ability of Fedora to overcome bureaucracy to finally include this package.
Comment 11 Christoph Wickert 2012-02-20 15:29:40 EST
(In reply to comment #10)
> GPLv3 was released by FSF on 29 June 2007, so I would say it's safe to assume
> that for themes released shortly after (ie. Nov 18 2008), GPL means GPL2. Yes,
> this is an assumption. 

GPLv2 already includes the following clause:

"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version”, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

Therefor we cannot even make the assumption you suggested.

> However, even if the license is GPL2 or GPL3, it should
> be fine to distribute with any sensible Linux distro, so I fail to see the
> importance of nailing this. We're talking about publicly available PekWM themes
> here, clearly labelled with "GPL".

We are not just another distro, we do distinguish between versions and need to mark the packages accordingly.

> If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if
> it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to
> be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site?

I'd be willing to risk this, but this requires that somebody actually tries to contact upstream.

> Here are links to all the themes, except for default-blue, default-brown,
> default-nice and tango (but there's no reason to assume they are not GPL as
> well. Themes without links could be excluded at install-time, for example):

As Fedora also distributes SRPMS we would need to remove he packages and re-create the Source0 tarball. Or we just use individual tarballs for each theme.

> Here's the archived upstream URL:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20100111002411/http://adrinux.wordpress.com/pekwm-themes/

There were no changes since 2008. Not sure if we should really have unmaintained content in Fedora.

> Note also that this package is included in at least Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE
> and Arch Linux.
> 
> It would be a testament to the ability of Fedora to overcome bureaucracy to
> finally include this package.

While I generally try to remove red tape, I don't think we should allow messy licensing. I'll let Spot decide how how to deal with this.
Comment 12 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-02-20 15:34:51 EST
Anything marked internally with "GPL" should be treated as "GPL+" in the absence of any other data. Anything unmarked should be treated as license unknown, and assumed to be non-free. We do not use other distributions packaging licensing as canonical license sources unless they have documented evidence to justify the licensing (and Debian is traditionally quite poor in this regard).
Comment 13 Germán Racca 2012-02-20 16:05:08 EST
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > If links aren't enough, will email-communication with the authors do? What if
> > it's someone else pretending to be the authors? Does the communication have to
> > be encrypted? What if someone gave a false name and a fake upstream site?
> 
> I'd be willing to risk this, but this requires that somebody actually tries to
> contact upstream.

I have sent several emails to the author but never got an answer.

Germán.
Comment 14 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-07-27 14:45:18 EDT
Any updates here?
Comment 15 Germán Racca 2012-07-30 11:15:46 EDT
No, it is a problem of licenses :(
Comment 16 Alexander Rødseth 2012-07-31 06:44:52 EDT
I beg to disagree. I think it's about distro identity: "We are not just another distro, we do distinguish between versions and need to mark the packages accordingly.". This is in contrast with the above mentioned distros that do include pekwm-themes.
Comment 17 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-07-31 09:58:32 EDT
Unless someone can clarify the licenses on those unmarked files, they cannot go into Fedora. I'm fairly confident that if I were to raise that issue with most of the other distributions, they would pull the package (or at least remove those files).

Repeatedly pointing out "But Mom, Billy just jumped off the bridge, why can't I?" is silly. This issue is only blocked on licensing, nothing more.
Comment 18 Alexander Rødseth 2012-07-31 18:11:45 EDT
The comparison with including a low-profile package like pekwm-themes with jumping off a bridge is silly. It's blocked by distro identity and bureaucracy, which is fine. I think everything points to that this ticket can be closed.
Comment 19 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-08-01 10:08:28 EDT
The profile of the package is irrelevant.

It is not blocked at all on "distro identity". It is blocked because there are some files for which the licensing is unclear. The ones marked as GPL are not at issue here, it is the ones which are unmarked that cannot be included as is.

Also, considering that you appear to be neither the reviewer nor the packager here, I intend to disregard your assertions of where "everything" is pointing.
Comment 20 Christoph Wickert 2012-08-02 05:23:16 EDT
I am the reviewer and also the sponsor of the package submitter. In order to move this forward I suggest to 
- either only package the themes where we know the author and their licenses
- or close this bug.
Comment 21 Ranjan Maitra 2012-09-10 23:40:17 EDT
I suggest package the themes with known authors and licenses. What are the themes missing authors/licenses?
Comment 22 Germán Racca 2012-09-11 08:38:53 EDT
(In reply to comment #20)
> I am the reviewer and also the sponsor of the package submitter. In order to
> move this forward I suggest to 
> - either only package the themes where we know the author and their licenses
> - or close this bug.

I didn't know I could package *only* the themes with known licenses, if I knew, I would have done it before, but now I'm not more interested in working on this package.
Comment 23 Germán Racca 2012-09-11 08:40:25 EDT
(In reply to comment #21)
> I suggest package the themes with known authors and licenses. What are the
> themes missing authors/licenses?

Globe Trotter,

Are you interested in this package? You could take my spec file and open a new review request if you wish.
Comment 24 Mario Blättermann 2013-10-20 15:15:24 EDT
It's been more than a year after the last response from the package submitter. And he indicated to no longer want to work on it. Shouldn't we close this ticket now?
Comment 25 Germán Racca 2013-10-20 17:17:58 EDT
Thanks Mario, I'm closing this review request.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.