http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-04-29 15:03:19 --- Z-Push is "GPLv2 with exceptions" according to Tom Callaway and the exception is, that Zarafa is not allowed in the US, thus this has to reach RPM Fusion. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2009-04-30 04:39:46 --- Hmmm, I wouldn't call that "GPLv2 with exceptions", but rather "GPLv2 with extra restrictions". The way this is worded bans even distribution to the US from outside the US, which makes us non-US folks responsible for enforcing US patent law, I wouldn't call this acceptable (and I'm not sure this is really compliant with section 8 of the GPLv2 either, but if it's not, it'd just make the license contradictory and the program entirely undistributable). In particular, how is RPM Fusion or its mirrors to prevent US users from downloading the software? By letting US users download the software, they'll be violating the license! I don't understand why they have to write this in the license at all, pretty much all the other patent-encumbered software does fine without such a clause (Xvid removed theirs, most others never had it in the first place). If this goes anywhere, it definitely needs to go to non-free. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart(a)gmail.com --- Comment #6 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-04-30 08:59:13 --- (In reply to comment #5) MP3 case means: the code itself is redistributed in a FOSS valid License despite the mp3 codec mechanism idea is patented. Here, the license is worded in a sense that it restricts the GPL which makes it theoretically not redistributable even for us, since it would be a GPL violation. (we refused to redistribute some version of faad some time ago, which fall under this case). Now I wouldn't abuse anyone (IANAL), but the american low, by qualifiying as illegal FOSS that implement patented idea, already restricts the GPL. In this case, z-push only puts this in license words. One could say, if the American law is modified (dreaming), the z-push "GPL restriction" also fall. But the fact that the "restriction" is written within the license suggest it will be inherited within other version. This is unfortunate. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2009-04-30 16:13:06 --- "Maybe" is not enough to invoke clause 8, they need to prove that there's a patent banning it in the US. Otherwise they're not compliant with the GPL and thus their licensing is contradictory. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-04-30 16:15:35 --- (In reply to comment #9) Heh, that didn't come out very clear. I have a high degree of confidence that z-push _infringes_ existing active Microsoft patents in the US. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-05-01 19:14:33 --- Okay...are there reviewers? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |fedora(a)leemhuis.info |review(a)rpmfusion.org | -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

Hi! Taking this to the list: On 11.05.2009 21:42, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote: I'd really appreciate if a few contributors and mirror admins could express their opinion on this issue. tia. CU knurd P.S.: For the complete history please see the bug. http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #16 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-06-28 15:48:27 --- okay, robert contacted a few mirror admins and ask them for their option; we got some replies and further discussed the issue on Fudcon in personal today. We agreed to basically do this: - I review the package with the intention to include it in the nonfree (even if it's kind of free, but it has a restriction which might make it nonfree in some peoples eyes) repository later - we send an announcement to the mirror admins in the US soon to make sure that this package is coming in a few weeks; that way they can update their mirror scripts to exclude this package from syncing - we also add a short note to the text mirrormanager shows new mirror admins to make sure they get aware of this issue - that text mentions a wiki page (which will get created) that explains the issue and lists problematic packages like this - we add a short "README" to the wiki and the mirror somewhere that mentions this issues and basically says "before using or redistributing nonfree software make sure it's legal to do so where you are" Does that sound fine for everyone? If not please speak up over the next few days, tia! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #18 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-08-02 15:31:59 --- Sorry, I wanted to review this weeks ago but was really busy with ohter issue; I apologize for the long delay General comment: the spec file is really scary; but well, I see no easy and long-term-safe way how to clean that mess :-/ I noticed two things where I'm not really sure if they are right as they are: - Will this part from the file section work if apache is not yet installed? %attr(-,apache,apache) %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/zarafa/%{name}/state/ Afaics the user is created as a %pre script in apache, so I guess it won't work. Maybe a "Requires(pre):" will do it (not sure, I never packaged or reviewed PHP stuff up to now). Or am I missing something? And will that apache perm really work if other webservers are used? - Is "Requires: php >= 4" really the proper way for the dep here? Shouldn't that be something like "php-api = %{php_apiver}" (at least on current Fedora? might be different in EL land...) Some other comments, just for completeness: - Hmm, the license field is quite long an kind of breaks the output of "rpm -qip z-push-1.2.2-1.src.rpm" -- but I see no easy way around that :-/ - is there any chance to get those patches and config files (or a different solution to solve the problem at hand) upstream? - this install document afaics might be helpful even for users of this rpm, so you might want to consider shipping it (maybe in a adjusted way?) - did not try if this package actually works; trusting the packager in this regard - rpmlint: arafa-z-push.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2 with clause 8 invoked zarafa-z-push.noarch: W: invalid-license distribution in the US is forbidden z-push.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2 with clause 8 invoked z-push.noarch: W: invalid-license distribution in the US is forbidden z-push.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 with clause 8 invoked z-push.src: W: invalid-license distribution in the US is forbidden 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #20 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-08-02 16:17:12 --- (In reply to comment #18) The RPM dependency ordering causes z-push -> php -> httpd, which are installed in the reversed order during dependency satisfy. It will work the same way, as phpMyAdmin, phpPgAdmin and phpldapadmin are doing for example. You're right, I should replace "webserver" by "httpd" like e.g. phpldapadmin is doing. Thanks for pointing out that. The php-api dependency is only required for binaries, that depend on the PHP ABI and would break if ABI changes, but soname doesn't change. The scripts do not depend on any ABI, they are just interpreted at runtime. It's like at Perl I would say. Yes, when reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP, it's not very clear. We could trunicate to "GPLv2 without distribution in the US" which is a bit shorter maybe. But breaks the output, too. I'm working together with upstream to try to get rid of this. The problem is, that z-push can be used in two ways: One is for Zarafa, the original way and for second for IMAP/Maildir/vCard. But you can use both in parallel as well. Upstream tells just to do two z-push installs then. As z-push is mostly used for Zarafa per default and by history and it can be provided in a configure- free way, I split this up into two packages - which also avoids to require the Zarafa package with php-mapi by default for Z-Push <-> IMAP/Maildir/vCard only users. Main problem behind is, that RPM in Fedora still doesn't support soft dependencies (unsatisfied dependencies), so these split-up, patches etc. The INSTALL document from the tarball is shipped in two different slightly modified ways with each RPM package as README, so that it is suitable and hopefully doesn't confuse end users. Just compare INSTALL and README files. Thank you, package is already in use at customers at work and by some other Zarafa and/or CentOS users. No, it's not a PHP extension but a software using PHP. Like not every software depending on Perl is called perl-* for example. Hopefully I clarified things a bit. It's a tricky situation, I know. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #22 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-08-09 18:09:46 --- Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/z-push.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/z-push-1.2.2-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kanarip(a)kanarip.com --- Comment #24 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; 2010-02-06 10:50:19 --- I'd argue the implications of (in this instance) an enforced GPL section 8 clause is part of the non-free repository already -thinking in terms of the potentially dangerous software patent encumbered software already in that repository, mirrors/users/entities are already "required" to carefully consider mirroring everything in the non-free repository. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #26 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2011-02-11 00:45:02 --- Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/z-push.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/z-push-1.5.1-1.src.rpm This is a new release of Z-Push, which is licensed under the same terms and conditions like Zarafa (AGPLv3). There is no longer a non-US restriction. That means, Z-Push can be handled now equivalent at RPM Fusion like MP3. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 --- Comment #28 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2011-06-04 06:34:30 --- = Heads up for @rpmfusion-developers-list = This package afaics aims the free repo these days; it's "AGPLv3 with exceptions". Here is the exception (copy'n'pasted from index.php): * According to sec. 7 of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, * the terms of the AGPL are supplemented with the following terms: * * "Zarafa" is a registered trademark of Zarafa B.V. * "Z-Push" is a registered trademark of Zarafa Deutschland GmbH * The licensing of the Program under the AGPL does not imply a trademark license. * Therefore any rights, title and interest in our trademarks remain entirely with us. * * However, if you propagate an unmodified version of the Program you are * allowed to use the term "Z-Push" to indicate that you distribute the Program. * Furthermore you may use our trademarks where it is necessary to indicate * the intended purpose of a product or service provided you use it in accordance * with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. * If you want to propagate modified versions of the Program under the name "Z-Push", * you may only do so if you have a written permission by Zarafa Deutschland GmbH * (to acquire a permission please contact Zarafa at trademark(a)zarafa.com). The file permission.pdf contains a written permission, that allows us to call our package z-push. So IOW and roughly speaking: the situation is similar to Firefox in Fedora, but not as strictly handled afaics. That's fine for me, but other RPM Fusion developers should have a chance to raise concerns. Hence I'll wait until at least Tuesday next week before I approve this package; of course we can always rename the package later or move it to the nonfree repo if we want to. = Review = Ony a few minor things: * I for one find the spec file line License: AGPLv3 with exceptions confusing, as the "with exceptions" is not explained anywhere in an obvious place. I'd say a clarifying comment or section in the README.FEDORA.package would be a good idea. Normally I'd say you should bug upstream to add it to LICENSE or create a file LICENSE.exception instead of adding it to files like index.php only, as people might not see it there and think it's a regular AGPLv3 * BTW, I'd give files like README.FEDORA.package a prefix with %{name} in the SRPM, as otherwise bad things bappen when people install multiple SRPMs that contain files with that name * rpmlint gives a warning on the SRPM: z-push.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 3) * should zarafa-z-push have a dep on zarafa or something else that owns /etc/zarafa/? Comment on those and I'll approve it nobody complains about the naming. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #30 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2011-06-11 11:08:51 --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Eugene Kanter <eugene(a)bct.bz&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eugene(a)bct.bz --- Comment #32 from Eugene Kanter <eugene(a)bct.bz&gt; 2011-06-12 06:18:52 --- /var/lib/z-push is not writable by httpd process. semanage fcontext -a -t httpd_sys_content_t '/var/lib/z-push(/.*)?' restorecon -rv /var/lib/z-push helps but a proper permanent solution may be needed. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|33 | -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|33 | --- Comment #35 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2011-06-13 00:50:29 --- [00:42:05] < kwizart> rsc, can you retry for devel ? [00:42:53] < rsc> kwizart: looks better now... [00:43:03] < kwizart> k [00:43:30] < kwizart> new cvs module script are still broken, appears sometime [00:43:43] < rsc> ah -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585 Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.