https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514
Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #6) > > If you don't actually need the sqlx-postgres support, I would recommend to > > avoid packaging finl_unicode, stringprep, and sqlx-postgres for now, and to > > remove the unused stringprep dependency from sqlx-mysql, and revisit > > packaging the postgres support when / if the finl_unicode situation is > > cleared up. > > Seems a bit tricky [1]. I think that's also the only database support for > `atuin-server`. Ah, perfect. It depends on the *one* backend that is problematic ... > > "All rights Preserved" > > I guess you meant "All rights reserved" Yes. Typo :) > also meaning that it is non-free? That's what this usually means, yes. > Weren't there other packages mentioned like `unicode-ident` which have the > same license . Is the license incompatible or the lack of license file? To me, this looks like the upstream project has no idea what they're doing, but I might be wrong. Other projects that include code generated from Unicode data (but not unicode data itself!) use Unicode-DFS-2016 license, which is OK for Fedora. So maybe the difference here is that finl_unicode actually bundles the Unicode data itself and not only the code generated from it? But I'm not sure. Either way, the "All rights reserved" notice seems to be wrong. > My current plan is Option2 + Option1 in the meantime + PR17 which at least > patches the crate metadata. Any other steps for that? Probably patching the > license header for the source files themselves, but I'm not sure where and > how for that. I guess I should also write an email for the legal mailing > list for more feedback? Without more clarifications from finl_unicode upstream, I don't think it can be packaged in the current form, even if you include PR +17. I don't think patching the license headers in the source files is necessary, their license is not impacted by the data that is shipped alongside them. But yes, I think posting to the "legal" mailing list for help would be a good idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
