https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
Bug ID: 2150362 Summary: Review Request: rust-gtk-macros - Few macros to make gtk-rs development more convenient Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: klember@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-gtk-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-gtk-macros-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Few macros to make gtk-rs development more convenient.
Fedora Account System Username: kalev
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94840946
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
--- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Note that this is a re-review request as the package was retired from Fedora a year ago due to nothing depending on it any more.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Oh oh, a GPLv3 project without a license file, that's not good. Looks like the upstream project hasn't been touched in a while, but Felix seems to be still active in the GNOME community - maybe you know how to reach out to him concerning issue#1 and possibly also issue#2?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(klember@redhat.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(klember@redhat.co | |m) |
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Hi Fabio,
Thanks for taking the review and sorry for the slow response!
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2)
Oh oh, a GPLv3 project without a license file, that's not good. Looks like the upstream project hasn't been touched in a while, but Felix seems to be still active in the GNOME community - maybe you know how to reach out to him concerning issue#1 and possibly also issue#2?
Why a GPLv3 project without a license file specifically not good? Is it one of the licenses where it says that the license text must be distributed along with the source? I couldn't find anything that says so in the license text, but it's a fairly long text and I may have missed it.
Sure, I can try to reach out to Felix and other rust people that are involved in the project. Is the missing license text a blocker for the Fedora package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- No problem, I was just going through review tickets I'm associated with and updated them all (and made sure none of them were waiting for *me*!)
If I understand correctly, yes, including a copy of the license text is a requirement:
- Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
I find this website very useful for things like these: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/ (in particular, the "bullet point" summary of the license terms at the top).
Is the missing license text a blocker for the Fedora package?
I think so. But I'm not sure how to handle the case where upstream states that they publish code under GPL-3.0 but they *themselves* don't include a copy of the license text ... I don't think RMS thought of this case :D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Oh, that link is super helpful, thanks! I think I agree with your interpretation. Let me try to get in touch with upstream first before adding the license text downstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150362
Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-06 21:49:26
--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- OK, I talked to upstream and the conclusion was that projects should stop using gtk-macros. I was packaging it for loupe and loupe just dropped the dependency (https://gitlab.gnome.org/Incubator/loupe/-/commit/8b3cfd000af0ac7cefc46dd8e8...) so there is no need for me to package it any more.
Let's just close this :) Thanks, Fabio!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org