[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: changes to summary guidelines

On 2004-07-14 04:39:29 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:

[...] Having a general case
to work from seems superior than working from just another package
summary, which may have various special-case differences of its own.

In reality, I suspect that the separate license analysis approach will
require 1 general analysis and some small fraction of n addition
analyses for those few packages with unusual applications of the license.

From the first paragraph, it seems that the special cases will be common. From the second, it seems that special cases will be unusual (rare?).

If most cases are special cases, we are O(n) in both cases and I agree one more summary doesn't seem a particular problem in principle, although we have more start-up work. That extra effort and delay might even be healthy, taking longer and giving more opportunity for feedback. If few cases are special, package summaries saves us work.

Personally, I think few cases will be special and it's worth encouraging people to look at the packages. I fear producing "general case" licence summaries which will entrench "it's QPL, so it goes in main" rule-like behaviour, even when there are significant differences.

[...] My summary was not intended to be a summary of libcwd's situation,
but of the QPL 1.0. [...]

Are you using a hypothetical package in your summary?

This is actually the perfect example for my previous point above. Had I
summarized the specific case of libcwd, I would have ignored writing
about the "send patches upstream" clause in any detail, because the
libcwd author waived that clause.

It's also the perfect example for my point. Why do unnecessary work? Actually, in this case, it looks like looking at ocaml would encourage looking at the upstream-send clause too.

Also, in the case of libcwd, both the author and the maintainer would
like an official statement on the QPL before proceeding [...]

Would they really not accept a look at libcwd directly?

MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden

Reply to: