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

Re: Packaging text licenses

Quoting Baptiste BEAUPLAT (2019-12-14 15:12:38)
> On 12/14/19 2:01 PM, Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote:
> > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only 
> >> for our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into 
> >> new development project, but also as reference e.g. for testing 
> >> license checkers.
> >>
> >> What is _not_ helpful in my opinion, however, is yet another 
> >> manually curated selection of random license texts.  What I see 
> >> generally useful is to package this: 
> >> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML
> I had another look around the repository. The tool used to "compile" 
> those XML files into text, html, json and so on is written in java 
> with a lot of dependencies that are not present in Debian yet.
> I am not willing to introducing dozens of new packages just to produce 
> a text result of those sources files.
> I'm wondering if packaging the "data" repository[1] would be 
> acceptable? On one hand it is generated, but one the other, it is 
> still plain text files.

That's similar pain as for many JavaScript packages and fonts...

Sure, you can try convince Debian that this project is special and don't 
need source.  That has been tried numerous times e.g. for JavaScript 
packages and fonts, and I don't recommend going down that route...

What I recommend i to try piece together an alternative XML processing 
which produces same output as the Java-based ones used upstream.

I'd be happy to help with that.  My preferred hacking environments are 
shell and perl.  If yours is different then I will be of less help.  
Let's discuss further in the #licenses channel if interested.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: