[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746


roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jkeating at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info  2007-02-03 23:02 EST -------
Partial review:

BLOCKERS:
* No upstream tarball to compare with included tarball (MUST item)
* Version of source (6) doesn't match package version (6.90)
* Description field is the same as summary field.
* Licensing is quite varied and contradictory:
  - The License field mentions GFDL, while no mention of such a license exists
    in the tarball contents.
  - The tarball contains a copy of GPL, while no file in the package is actually
    licensed under the GPL either.
  - The license for the program "eula.py" is not mentioned in its header, making
    it proprietary software.
  - The file "README-Accessibility" in the package says "Copyright © 2003 by
    Red Hat, Inc." (no mention of license, free or not)
  - The file "eula.txt" in the package says "Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005,
    2006 Fedora Project.  All rights reserved." (definitely not free) and also
    mentions a few trademarks.
* The file "eula.txt" mentions weird things:
  - It says there is something called "Fedora Core". What is that? ;-)
  - It talks about "Fedora Core 6". But it's for "Fedora 7 test-something" or
    "Fedora Rawhide" or something.
  - It says that "The end user license agreement for each component is located
    in the component's source code." Rarely true. Instead, the source code
    usually contains a copyright license (like the GPL, which free software
    usually has), not an end user license agreement (which proprietary software
    usually has).
  - It says that except "certain image files containing the Fedora trademark",
    the license terms allow one to "[...] modify, and redistribute the
    component". Not always true, considering packages that are only
    "Distributable". Not always true because of Section 5 either.
  - It talks about a package named "anaconda-images", which does not exist in
    Fedora anymore.
  - In its Section 5, it requires things from users in Pakistan and basically
    asks them to "represent and warrant" that they will not help their
    neighbor[ing countries] and ask the US government for
    permission for giving a copy of the software (parts of which he may have
    written himself) to his friend, among other things.
  - I totally prefer licenses that say "You are not required to accept this
    License, since you have not signed it" (from GPL clause 5), instead of those 
    who say "By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to
    the terms of this agreement." Who has written this anyway? ;-)
  - /me escapes

SUGGESTIONS:
* "fedora-release-6" or a part of it could become a macro. At the minimum could
be replace with "%{name}-6".
* Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc
* Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share
* Use "cp -p" and "install -p" instead of "cp" and "install" everywhere
* Use "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" instead of "%defattr(-,root,root)"


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.