Bug#689715: Review of eyefiserver-2.3~rc1-1
Hello,
Sorry, completely forgot about that...
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère
<jmv_deb@nirgal.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 October 2012 19:59:11 Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>>>> * I don't see the point of including session dumps - especially 4MB of them !
>>> Absolutely. Done.
>>> I did not change the orig tarball however. Right?
>>
>> Hmmm... I'm unsure about that, since the copyright status of the
>> dumps is somehow unclear (and their license too). I'm afraid the
>> FTPmasters would not appreciate that much. I leave it up to you to
>> dedice however...
>> (...)
>> Great. I'm waiting for your answer on my first comment, and I'll upload then.
>
>
> I would prefer not to have a fetch-orig target that would mangle the orig tarball.
> So the best option, IMHO, would be to solve that upstream. I can do that.
>
>
> The big dump file has been helpful understanding the protocol, so I'm a bit reluctant to just drop it.
>
> I can see two options:
> - Delete the http_dump file entirely.
> - Delete the part of the file that contains the "uploadImage()" command, so it goes down to a decent size, less than 10kB.
>
> I think option 2 is better, but you also mentioned its license is unclear:
>
> Is that because it contains a dump of a windows eyefi session? Would that be better to have a similar dump of the free version of the server? I mean a truncated dump.
The thing is: what is the copyright status of such a thing ? Is it
free ? To me, it seems that it's a bit like a screenshot of a game --
it can only be considered free if the game is free, which, in this
case, isn't true. I understand that you, as a developer, found this
dump extremely useful. But will the users care ?
I'm just worried about a potential REJECT from the ftpmasters.
> Your are not talking about the embedded image in tarball in the uploadimage() in the dump file, are you?
That is but a small part of the problem.
> If I go for a truncated dump, I plan to put back the dumps in the documentation, that would be ok, wouln't it?
That still doesn't clear the copyright problem, as far as I can tell !
> Thank you very much for your time!
You're welcome, and sorry for not getting back to you earlier.
Cheers,
Vincent
Reply to: