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=694287
--- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-04-14 23:08:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
2 issues:
- The tarball contains a lot of bundled libraries (cf, Externals/).
cf?
Compare for the contents of the directory called Externals/ inside of the tarball. It contains zlib, Cg,, libxml, lib3ds and other libraries.
A more detailed look into the package tells that openCOLLADA currently only uses MathMLSolver/ and UTF/.
=> Make sure the other directories are not being used when building for Fedora. Brute-force way to do so would be to remove them in %prep (This is what a recent change to the FPG recommends).
This is problematic twice:
In general, the Fedora package should not not use them.
These packages' licenses need to be checked for whether they are properly
licensed and whether these package's licenses are compatible to openCOLLADA's license.
From a coarse glance into tarball, I'd suspect Externals/MathMLSolver not to be properly licensed (I can't find any licence). Googling however directed me to http://mathmlsolver.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathmlsolver/trunk, but I haven't checked details, yet.
Drilled down to the actual SF page at it says it is MIT licensed.
Yes. I meanwhile also found some copyright notices in Externals/MathMLSolver's headers and found openCOLLADA/Externals/MathMLSolver to be a hacked up version of the code on sourceforge.
I don't know why openCOLLADA is doing so - Could be they are "just hacking" and don't care about proper integration/packaging, could be the sourceforge project is dead. AFAICT, googling indicates openCOLLADA is the only user of MathMLSolver while the sourceforge project might be dead.
How do we handle that?
The formal way would be to ask upstream to add the license file.
I ran into this problem on RPMFusion and the decision was to put comments above the License: tag explaining which parts had what license.
Yes, this is one option to handle such cases.
- The package naming seems inconsistent to me:
libOpenCOLLADA vs. OpenCOLLADA-devel
The FPG would recommend using the tarball name, which would mean to name the packages openCOLLADA and openCOLLADA-devel
The current naming was how the Suse maintainer set it up and I'm sure their rules differ in many areas. For the purpose of the Fedora package I'll change the name.
If you want to add "SUSE compatibility" you can add corresponding "Provides: ...".