[Bug 616292] Review Request: pekwm-themes - Pekwm themes collection

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616292

Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 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.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.