[Bug 569833] Review Request: drupal6 - An open-source content-management platform

[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=569833

--- Comment #8 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> 2010-07-01 22:02:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for looking at this.  I've updated to 6.17.
> 
> WRT .htaccess, I'm just basically trying to stay close to upstream.  I've heard
> a lot from Drupal users on both sides of the issue.

worksforme


> 
> WRT the files migrator script, it's in doc because it's only to be run be
> admins who've read the directions, essentially.  It's actually not even really
> to be run in most cases, simply to be used as a guideline for manual action. 
> I'm actually not entirely sure it's needed here, in a new package.

Completely up to your discretion, I was just curious. 

> 
> WRT the license, the code doesn't specify, but refers the reader to the
> LICENSE.TXT, which specifies GPLv2.  I could see using GPLv2, but not just GPL.
>  Updated.



So http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
Contains the following text: 

A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include. 


So grepping (-ir) source code for license or GPL  and ignoring LICENSE.txt I
get the following results: 
./includes/xmlrpc.inc: * This version is made available under the GNU GPL
License
./index.php: * All Drupal code is released under the GNU General Public
License.
./misc/jquery.form.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT and GPL licenses:  (NOTE:
this is a completely different program)
./misc/jquery.js: * and GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses.  (NOTE: this is a
completely different program)

Based on the above from the Licensing page (which I understand came from the
FSF) the license field should GPL+ (I also installed to see if perhaps the
program referenced LICENSE.txt and pulled in the license in 'program output'
but to the best of my knowledge it does not.) And the fact that in source
code/program output/accomplanying docs that there is no version declaration is
how I arrived there. I fully agree that their intention is GPLv2, however the
implementation has been GPL+. 


Also I still see this when building the RPM:
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/drupal6/.htaccess

-- 
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.