Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mediawiki-SpamBlacklist - An extension to provide a Spam Blacklist management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491790
Summary: Review Request: mediawiki-SpamBlacklist - An extension to provide a Spam Blacklist management system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guthrie@counterexample.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/mediawiki-SpamBlacklist.spec SRPM URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/mediawiki-SpamBlacklist-0-0.3.20090318svn.f... Description: SpamBlacklist is a simple edit filter extension. When someone tries to save the page, it checks the text against a potentially very large list of "bad" hostnames. If there is a match, it displays an error message to the user and refuses to save the page.
The list of bad URLs can be drawn from multiple sources, including a URL that contains a list of bad URL regexes, a file that contains a list of bad URL regexes, or a database location. The last option will allow you to manage a local blacklist from a wiki page. By default, it used the blacklist at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist.
Whitelisting is supported as well.
Note from the author regarding stability: This extension has not been widely tested outside Wikimedia. Although it has been in production on Wikimedia websites since December 2004, it should be considered experimental. Its design is simple, with little input validation, so unexpected behaviour due to incorrect regular expression input or non-standard configuration is entirely possible. Just to repeat, this is an *EXPERIMENTAL* extension.
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=491790
--- Comment #1 from John Guthrie guthrie@counterexample.org 2009-03-24 00:28:12 EDT --- I should make a note regarding the value that I put in for the license field.
I have set the license field to "Freely distributable without restrictions" on the basis of the following URLs:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:SpamBlacklist#Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/Free_software
I am also using the README file that is contained in the package as part of the basis for this value of the License tag.
I have also sent an email to the author to get a better clarification as well.
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=491790
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-07-08 22:40:07 EDT --- Did you receive clarification from the author?
Many of these mediawiki plugins suffer from terribly confusing licensing status. This one seems especially bad as the only thing we can really go on, the README file, says:
This extension and this documentation was written by Tim Starling and is ambiguously licensed.
I would argue that without clarification, there is no way this can go into Fedora. It doesn't even seem that we have redistribution rights. I guess I'll block FE-Legal.
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=491790
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-07-14 16:42:45 EDT --- I'm inclined to agree with Tibbs's assessment. There are two points to be made here:
1. There is no license on this code (and it is code, not content). Without a license, the code is non-free.
2. "Freely distributable without restrictions" is not an acceptable license for Fedora code.
You should get specific licensing terms from the copyright holder (aka, the author). Without that, this cannot move forward. His individual views on free software aside, the way that copyright law works is that the only right we are given simply by having access to his software is the right to use. We do not have the right to copy, modify, or redistribute. We need him to explicitly grant us (and anyone who gets the code from us) those rights.
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=491790
--- Comment #4 from John Guthrie guthrie@counterexample.org 2009-07-26 13:12:28 EDT --- Alas, I have not received any kind of response from the author as yet. I will try to contact him again. If I still don't get a response, then we'll probably have to close the review request.
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=491790
--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-11-30 20:03:40 EDT --- Just following up on this one, did you get any kind of response from the upstream author?
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=491790
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |NOTABUG
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-02-08 19:26:32 EST --- I'm going ahead and closing this given the AWOL status of the submitter. Should anyone wish to resubmit, please address the legal issue first.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org