[Bug 537325] Review Request: lv2-fil-plugins - Four-band parametric equalisers

[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=537325

--- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> 2010-07-16 19:13:38 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Fedora Review lv2-fil-plugins 2010-07-15
> 

Thanks again!

> Fix spelling error: whithout → without
> Fix BE vs. AE: coloured → colored
> 

Fixed.

> + Package is named according to guidelines (and fits well with
>   existing lv2-*-plugins packages)
> + Specfile is named after the package
> + Package license tag (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+) is Fedora approved
> 
> Licenses of installed components:
> 
> * filter.so:
>     filter.[ch] → GPLv2+
>     lv2filter.[ch] → GPLv2
>     lv2plugin.c → GPLv2
>     log.[ch] → GPLv2
>     lv2_ui.c → GPLv2+
>     lv2_ui.h → LGPLv2+
>     lv2_external_ui.h → Public domain
>   License for aggregate: GPLv2
> 
> * ui → license statement in file: GPLv2
> 
> * filter.ttl, lv2logo.png, manifest.ttl → no license statement in the
>   files → assume GPLv2 since this is what upstream claims is the
>   default for the project
> 
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
>   says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of
>   the binary rpm."
> 
> - So as far as I read the guidelines a license tag of "GPLv2" is enough
> 

That was the original license tag I set on this package (2.0-1). However,
Michael pointed out that this is wrong. See comments 1-8 above. I also asked
this on Fedora Legal list 
  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00029.html

The outcome was "There is no such thing as effective license, or no such thing
as most restrictive license wins. List all licenses included in the tag".

So I changed it to  LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+


> ? BuildRequires are sane, but build used bundles waf instead of system's,
>   intentional?
> 

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541524#c5

This one even crashes the system waf. :(

SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-fil-plugins.spec
SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-fil-plugins-2.0-3.fc13.src.rpm

Changelog: 2.0-3
- More language fixes

-- 
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.