[Bug 694287] Review Request: openCOLLADA - 3D import and export libraries

[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=694287

--- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at 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:
...".

-- 
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.