Bug 325 (unalz)

Summary:	unalz - Decompression utility
Product:	Package Reviews	Reporter:	Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora>
Component:	Review Request	Assignee:	RPM Fusion Package Review <rpmfusion-package-review>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID
Severity:	normal	CC:	rpmfusion-package-review
Priority:	P5
Version:	Current
Hardware:	All
OS:	GNU/Linux
namespace:

Description Orcan Ogetbil 2009-01-15 21:54:28 CET

Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/unalz.spec
SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/unalz-0.62-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description: 
Unalz is a utility to decompress .alz files. It supports bzip2/raw
format transformation, splitting the compressed file into smaller
chunks (alz, a00, a01, ...), extract password protected .alz files,
and CRC checks.

rpmlint is silent. 

Alzip is a commercial software: http://www.altools.com/
unalz is a free decompressor for alzip (Korean):
http://www.kipple.pe.kr/win/unalz/

This software normally comes with its own zlip and bzip2. I managed to patch it
to use the system's zlib. But it uses a private header file of bzip2 (which is
not in bzip2-devel package) and thus (part of) bzip2 has to be built in unalz.
This is the way it is in Ubuntu too.

Why rpmfusion?
I had submitted this to Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477106
But after consulting people on #fedora-devel who can read Korean, we figured that the project webpage says:
"it is free as in cost, but you are prohibited from on commercial distribution in magazines or CD"
So it is non-free and hence got rejected from Fedora. The author did not reply to my email I sent 4 weeks ago to clear the license issue, therefore I brought this to rpmfusion.

Comment 1 Orcan Ogetbil 2009-01-15 21:57:07 CET

I forgot to mention that the webpage also says:
"it allows distribution only unmodified and patches must be distributed separately."

Shall I remove my patch?

Comment 2 Orcan Ogetbil 2009-01-15 22:33:20 CET

Sorry,
The upstream didn't reply to my message but apparently they made a new release very recently and it looks like they cleared the license issues. I should have checked this before I opened the bug. 

I am re-submitting this to Fedora and closing this bug.