Overview
Request 841981 revoked
Introducing package hexer, a vi-like hexeditor.
- Created by jbaier_cz
- In state revoked
-
Open review for
licensedigger
-
Open review for
factory-staging
Request History
jbaier_cz created request
Introducing package hexer, a vi-like hexeditor.
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
dimstar_suse added as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:34"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:34"
dimstar accepted review
licensedigger declined review
@dec16180 declined the legal report with the following comment: b'contains non-commercial license, see hexer-1.0.6/myc.doc. '
licensedigger declined request
@dec16180 declined the legal report with the following comment: b'contains non-commercial license, see hexer-1.0.6/myc.doc. '
dimstar_suse reopened request
Reopened via staging workflow.
dimstar_suse added factory-staging as a reviewer
Being evaluated by group "factory-staging"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Unstaged from project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:34"
dimstar_suse declined request
Declined via staging workflow.
jbaier_cz revoked request
Hmm, that license got 3 clauses but it's not bsd-3-clause as the author extended it by a lot.
I quote: If you modify any part of HEXER and redistribute it in binary form, you must supply a `README' file containing information about the changes you made.
As I see a patch, do you provide a README?
I would say it is definitely at least BSD-3 compatible, in my opinion those extra clauses are not against the main BSD principle. Do we have a suitable better match or is it BSD-3-Clause-Modified then?
Does package changelog qualify as "README"? The patch in fact just sets some variables for make and the Makefile seems not to be under the same licence so it might be arguable if I modified a part of HEXER. Anyways, we can get easily away by integrating those changes inside the spec file.
The only question left, what should I put in the licence field then?
What makes you think the Makefile is under a different license? And "a notice to the `README' file" is pretty explicit
What should I put in the licence field then?
Firstly, the Makefile does not contain the same licence header as every other file. Secondly it contains phrases as "Uncomment the following lines if you want to use" and "Uncomment these if", those are pretty explicit to me that it is desirable to change that. Btw. Modifying a README would be considered as a modification and thus requires a notice inside a README?
well, at this point you should realize that the license is a shitty one and you need the author to clear it up. Which is the reason the world moved to standard licenses having a known license field entry.