[Bug 815624] Review Request: xedit - Simple text editor for X

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624

--- Comment #15 from pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > (In reply to comment #11)
> > > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > > 
> > > The "COPYING" file contains multiple licenses, are you sure a simple "MIT"
> > > license is enough?
> > 
> >   The licenses are MIT or BSD-style without clauses. I also added
> > GPLv2+ because of the int64 patch actually adapts code from libgcc.
> 
> Why the GPLv2+ here?
> This is in the patch:
> +/* based on code based on libgcc (that is GPLv3)
> + * version here doesn't return the result or MINSLONG if overflow
> + */
> 
> wouldn't that make it to GPLv3??
> 
> Please elaborate a bit more on that.

  I did that as a quick patch to one feature that is only available
when evaluating lisp expressions in the "*scratch*" buffer. But that
is very unlikely someone would ever use :-) The license update in the
spec only refers to the patch, but I can rework it to use some different
approach or update the spec to say GPLv3 (I do not recall if I adapted
it from libgcc sources before or after switch to GPLv3)

> realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT!
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

  It was added to xedit source back in 1990's, but can be removed
before starting the build, or replaced by a newer version, that should
be GPL compatible. I did not add it back then, and it was added to
build XFree86 on systems without a working realpath, strcasecmp, etc.

  I believe the 3 clause one, first google result, would do it
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/stdlib/realpath.c?rev=1.14;content-type=text%2Fplain

> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Please correct the license, "BSD-like" is not a valide License tag
> 
> Which would be the right one, Simone?

  I am used to write BSD-like as license tag for Mandriva packages,
but I did overlook the COPYING file with a proper license audit, and
it does indeed list BSD 4 clause.

> Also missing:
> "Which file is under which license" comment in the spec file:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> 
> Don't import this package till the licensing is completely clear!

  Ok. I do not have plans to do any work on xedit (other than packaging),
and almost nothing was done in 2002-2012, but I still use it,
unfortunately :-) But if everything were ok now I would not import/submit
until the Xaw issue in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824198
is addressed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.