[Bug 906411] New: Review Request: mup - a music notation and printing program

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906411

            Bug ID: 906411
           Summary: Review Request: mup - a music notation and printing
                    program
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: unspecified
          Priority: unspecified
          Reporter: gbailey at lxpro.com

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #904911 +++

mup is a music notation and printing program with both GUI and CLI interfaces
for authoring and printing music notation.

rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mup-6.1-1.x86_64.rpm
/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm
mup.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup.spec

--- Additional comment from Greg Bailey on 2013-01-28 15:58:21 EST ---

I've made a few changes to the .spec file to move things into proper
directories for FHS compliance, and created a .desktop file so that mupmate
shows up in the desktop menus.

rpmlint SPECS/mup.spec RPMS/x86_64/mup* SRPMS/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm 
mup.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup.src: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

I put "Arkkra Mup License" because the license, while very similar to one of
the BSD variants, doesn't match exactly.

SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup.spec

--- Additional comment from Greg Bailey on 2013-01-28 18:38:39 EST ---

According to:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers

I get bonus points :-) for posting a link to a successful koji build, so here
goes:

f19:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909766

epel6:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909777

--- Additional comment from Susi Lehtola on 2013-01-31 09:04:16 EST ---

The license http://www.arkkra.com/doc/license.html looks like 2 clause BSD but
with the addition

 3. Any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files
 must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation.
 including the reasons for the changes,
 and the names of those who made the modifications

Blocked FE-LEGAL.

**

Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3
might lead one to believe you are the submitter.

--- Additional comment from Brendan Jones on 2013-01-31 09:18:41 EST ---

Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He is
upstream.

All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of
BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?

--- Additional comment from Susi Lehtola on 2013-01-31 09:23:13 EST ---

(In reply to comment #4)
> All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of
> BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?

Let's wait for spot. This should be a no-brainer.

--- Additional comment from Brendan Jones on 2013-01-31 09:27:34 EST ---

Ok cool.

Another comment, their license looks FOSS to me, so I am unsure of the FE-LEGAL
block. Maybe it could be considered under "Good licenses"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wYErkYqqSY&a=cc_unsubscribe