headers
Steve Long | 1 Dec 2006 09:05
Picon

Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> What, you really think that Donnie doesn't know how the X licence
>> handling situation breaks GLEP 23? Just how exactly is ACCEPT_LICENSE
>> usable when you have this?
> 
> [ cropped groups of similar license combinations ]
> 
> Pretty usable, when you consider that it specifies groups. Throw all
> that stuff into an MIT group and you're good to go.
> 
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:56:18 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <dberkholz <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> | But I guess you don't think that's good enough for some reason. Since
> | you've already done the work to analyze the various groups, why don't
> | you finish it by figuring out the applicable licenses, and whether
> | new ones need to get added, and send a patch out?
> 
> All things considered, I've little inclination to do your job for
> you... QA and not screwing over Gentoo users is your responsibility, not
> mine.
> 
Ciaran: does the group stuff Donnie mentioned above fix this? Secondly, how
difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I know it's not your
responsibility, I just want to know whether you can do it fairly easily.

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ciaran McCreesh | 1 Dec 2006 13:27

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 +0000 Steve Long
<slong <at> rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
| Ciaran: does the group stuff Donnie mentioned above fix this?

No. That's a massive abuse of groups. If people wanted to just accept
any licence necessary to install a particular package, they'd disable
licence filtering. The purpose of groups is to allow people to quickly
select licences that have been approved by various organisations that
have lawyers checking this kind of thing.

| Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
| know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you
| can do it fairly easily.

It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access...

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian Harring | 1 Dec 2006 13:37
Picon

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 +0000 Steve Long
> | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
> | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you
> | can do it fairly easily.
> 
> It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access...

anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could 
stand reviewing anyways).

~harring
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ciaran McCreesh | 1 Dec 2006 13:43

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb <at> gmail.com>
wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 +0000 Steve Long
| > | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
| > | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you
| > | can do it fairly easily.
| > 
| > It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access...
| 
| anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could 
| stand reviewing anyways).

Yeah, because a tree-wide patch against a changing tree is really
practical.

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian Harring | 1 Dec 2006 14:29
Picon

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:43:18PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 +0000 Steve Long
> | > | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
> | > | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you
> | > | can do it fairly easily.
> | > 
> | > It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access...
> | 
> | anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could 
> | stand reviewing anyways).
> 
> Yeah, because a tree-wide patch against a changing tree is really
> practical.

Your changes will be fairly limited; pretty much tweaking LICENSE 
vars, mangling/adding to license/.  Yes, the tree changes, but it 
doesn't change fast enough for such a patch to be instantly worthless 
(nor worthless in a few weeks, albeit a bit dated).

Such a change *should* have review anyways, since LICENSE isn't 
something that should be arbitrarily screwed with.

Keep in mind that someone else is going to have to handle the patch 
anyways, so it's out of your hands at that point; let them worry about 
how to handle it, meanwhile you're after the change so throw the 
delta their way.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ciaran McCreesh | 1 Dec 2006 14:37

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:29:22 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb <at> gmail.com>
wrote:
| Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his 
| direction if you want things changed.

"If you don't want it to be broken, fix it yourself" is hardly a viable
QA policy...

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Steve Long | 1 Dec 2006 22:09
Picon

Re: Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:29:22 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his
> | direction if you want things changed.
> 
> "If you don't want it to be broken, fix it yourself" is hardly a viable
> QA policy...
> 
No, but you are an ex-dev so it hardly counts as asking a newbie to do it.

As for your other point:
> | Ciaran: does the group stuff Donnie mentioned above fix this?
> 
> No. That's a massive abuse of groups. If people wanted to just accept
> any licence necessary to install a particular package, they'd disable
> licence filtering. The purpose of groups is to allow people to quickly
> select licences that have been approved by various organisations that
> have lawyers checking this kind of thing.
>
Is there any consensus on that?

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane