https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514
Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |decathorpe(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
(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=rep...