qoi_image_transport: 1.0.4-1 in 'noetic/distribution.yaml' [bloom]

[peci1]

Increasing version of package(s) in repository qoi_image_transport to 1.0.4-1:

• upstream repository: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport
• release repository: https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/cras/ros-release/qoi_image_transport.git
• distro file: noetic/distribution.yaml
• bloom version: 0.12.0
• previous version for package: null

qoi_image_transport

* Fixed licenses.
* CI: Added CI.
* Added unit tests, fixed little bugs.
* Initial commit.
* Contributors: Martin Pecka

[github-actions]

Thanks for sending a pull request to ROS distro!

This is an automated tool that helps check your pull request for correctness.
This tool checks a number of attributes associated with your ROS package and generates a report that helps our reviewers merge your pull request in a timely fashion. Here are a few things to consider when sending adding or updating a package to ROS Distro.
ROS Distro includes a very helpful CONTRIBUTING.md file that we recommend reading if it is your first time submitting a package.
Please also read the ROS Distro review guidelines which summarizes this release process.

ROS Distro Considerations

• ROS Distributions are created using REP-134 Standards Track as a guide.
• Your package name should comply to REP-144 ROS Package Naming
• Your package must build for all platforms and architectures on the ROS buildfarm. See REP-2000 ROS Releases and Supported Platforms for all supported platforms for your ROS Distro.
• Your package must contain an OSI approved license. Your package.xml file must also include that license in a machine readable format. See REP-149 Package Manifest Format Three Specification for additional details.
• A publicly available, open source, repository for your ROS package.
• While not required, we recommend that you create an account for ROS Discourse and subscribe to the appropriate release topic.
• If you would like, you may join our Discord Server and ask questions in the #infra-help channel.

Package Considerations

Having your package included in a ROS Distro is a badge of quality, and we recommend that package developers strive to create packages of the highest quality. We recommend package developers review the following resources before submitting their package.

• REP-2004 Package Quality Declaration-- The ROS 2 TSC has created a quality rating system for ROS packages. These ratings should serve as a guide for package developers. We recommend package developers achieve a quality level of three or higher.
• Documentation -- it is recommended that ROS packages include an extensive README.md file, and API level documentation using the Sphinx documentation system.
• Maintainer Responsibilities -- the ROS 2 documentation includes a guide to ROS package maintainer responsibilities that summarizes your responsibilities as an open source maintainer. While we do not enforce these requirements on package maintainers they should be considered best practices.
• We recommend that your package should strive to conform to the ROS 2 Developer Guide and the ROS 2 Style Guide.

Need Help?

Please post your questions to Robotics Stack Exchange or refer to the #infra-help channel on our Discord server.

---

For changes related to yamllint:

• ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks

[github-actions]

For changes related to yamllint:

• ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks

[christophebedard]

The package.xml lists BSD as its license: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport/blob/3261c512a2a3a54f16ed45b6a2528434f9efe343/package.xml#L12e. It also points to a LICENSE file, which is symlinked to LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt. However, there are other licenses in the LICENSES directory, notably MIT and Unlicense: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport/tree/master/LICENSES. I can see that MIT is for at least one header file, but I can't find which files the Unlicense applies to. I think those licenses should also be listed in the package.xml file, probably with a comment saying which files they apply to/are for.

[christophebedard]

• At least one of the following must be present
  • Top level license file: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport/tree/master/LICENSES
  • Per package license files:
• License is OSI-approved: BSD-3, MIT
  • CC0-1.0 is used for test data, but it's not distributed with the package and is not listed in the package.xml file, so OK
• License correctly listed in package.xmls: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport/blob/ad09684cb507044ae9f4220344dc338fb4c035ce/package.xml#L12-L13
• Public source repo: https://github.com/ctu-vras/qoi_image_transport
• Source repository contains ROS packages
• Each package meets REP-144 naming conventions
  • Pretty clear

[github-actions]

For changes related to yamllint:

• ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks

[peci1]

Oh, you're right! I somehow always thought there can only be one <license> tag... But it makes sense to have more. It's a pity ros-infrastructure/rep#347 hasn't moved too much since it was accepted by the TSC...

The Unlicense was used for test data. However, I reconsidered it and changed to CC0.

The top-level LICENSE symlink is there mostly for Github so that it shows the license in the metadata column.

I've updated this PR with 1.0.3-1 which has the licensing fixed.

[christophebedard]

Thanks for the update!

As for CC0-1.0, that is tricky. It is not actually a license, but it apparently does have a license-y fallback. However, it is not OSI-approved, which is what we're looking for: https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero. The thing is that it's only for test data, which is not distributed. I think it might be fine in that case, but let me check with other people.

[christophebedard]

Just so that the PR doesn't accidentally get merged before the above is resolved.

[peci1]

Does it really make sense to require OSI-approved licenses for data? The software licenses are not designed to be applied to data, altough people often do it. There are other licenses targeted exactly at data, which are e.g. CC licenses, ODbL or PDDL.

[christophebedard]

It doesn't really make sense, but I think the guideline is "licenses listed in a package.xml." Just trying to follow the rules here 😁

[peci1]

Yeah, that's good ;) Please, let me know after you consult this... I can definitely change the license of the test files to BSD, but it would be better to be able to use a more proper license ;)

[christophebedard]

Of course, I'll let you know. I've added this to the list of rosdistro PRs to discuss for next week's PMC meeting, but I may get a second opinion before then (hopefully).

[christophebedard]

We just talked about this in today's ROS PMC meeting (2025-04-01).

You can simply drop CC0 from the package.xml, since the test data is not distributed, but still keep it somewhere in the repo, which you already have as .bag.license files next to the test bag files.

[peci1]

Thanks! I've updated the package and this PR.

[github-actions]

For changes related to yamllint:

• ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks

[christophebedard]

Thanks for making the changes!

[ros-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on ROS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.ros.org/t/preparing-for-noetic-sync-2025-04-03/42940/2