Bug 1455

Summary:	Review Request: cdecl - C declarator, public domain Code
Product:	Package Reviews	Reporter:	Santosh Sivaraj <santoshs>
Component:	Review Request	Assignee:	RPM Fusion Package Review <rpmfusion-package-review>
Status:	RESOLVED EXPIRED
Severity:	normal	CC:	rpmfusion-package-review
Priority:	P5
Version:	Current
Hardware:	All
OS:	GNU/Linux
namespace:	nonfree
Attachments:	The cdecl RPM build spec

Description Santosh Sivaraj 2010-10-15 12:32:13 CEST

Created attachment 512 [details]
The cdecl RPM build spec

cdecl program which can translate C declarations to and form human readable form, originally written in the Usenet group. Packaged from Debian maintained sources

This package has been removed from fedora due to the absence of license. The cdecl code is in public domain. The source RPM is from the redhat EL4 release with modifications to Makefile and spec.

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint .
cdecl.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.31.fc13 ['2.5-31.fc13', '2.5-31']

Source RPM: https://sites.google.com/site/santoshsivaraj/home/files/cdecl-2.5-31.fc13.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1

RPM SPEC: https://sites.google.com/site/santoshsivaraj/home/files/cdecl.spec?attredirects=0&d=1
The spec also attached with this request.

This is my first RPM Fusion package and also seeking a sponsor.

Comment 1 Kevin Kofler 2010-10-18 04:42:38 CEST

Do you have any evidence that it really IS public domain? If you have such evidence, the package is acceptable for Fedora, if you don't, well, then chances are it's not distributable at all, by any repository. The default is for any code to be copyrighted, with all applicable rights reserved by the author, even if there is no explicit copyright notice.

Comment 2 Santosh Sivaraj 2010-10-19 06:33:31 CEST

(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you have any evidence that it really IS public domain? If you have such
> evidence, the package is acceptable for Fedora, if you don't, well, then
> chances are it's not distributable at all, by any repository. The default is
> for any code to be copyrighted, with all applicable rights reserved by the
> author, even if there is no explicit copyright notice.
> 

I do not any such evidence except for the Debian package source copyright file.
But as for as my research in the internet did not give a solid evidence for it to be in Public Domain, But there words from the co-authors to make it GPL'ed, but the main author (Graham Ross) still couldn't be contacted. I am trying to contact Graham through Linkedin.