On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:55:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > One thing first: The question if we change DFSG and documenting what we > think is free (or not) are two entirely different things, and shouldn't > be mixed together. > > I'm replying only to the documenting thing using my ftpmaster hat, the > DFSG§10 one is entirely seperate and doesn't really touch ftp* opinions. Fair enough, let's fix the subject then. > The whole of ftp* agrees that it would be nice to have a place > documenting this. So much so that we started something for it in 2009, > see http://ftp-master.debian.org/licenses/ for it. Oooooohhhh, that's awesome! I had no idea something like that existed, and I can't find it listed anywhere: can you people please link it from http://ftp-master.debian.org/ ? > And here is an ikiwiki instance in a git, check it out, ftp*". > got it around 31 commits far, and then it "slept in". It *is* entirely > dull and non-fun and just boring work, with no direct payoff (in > NEW/rm you at least have that direct "payback" :) ). For those willing to play with it, the associated Git repository seems to be at http://ftp-master.debian.org/git/licenses.git/ Joerg, it would be nice to rebuild it adding the repolist plugin http://ikiwiki.info/plugins/repolist/ , which would add the rel-vcs metadata, making the following work nicely out of the box with mr: $ webcheckout http://ftp-master.debian.org/ I haven't found the ikiwiki configuration in Git, so I'm unable to provide a patch for that. > That said, we would be happy to get it back to live and end up with it > (either where it is now or wherever fits) being a useful place. Seeing > how it directly touches us (decide if $foo can go into the archive and > be distributed or not), it certainly makes sense to have it within FTP* > overview. Ideally, what I'd love is then to see that page replacing what we currently have at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ . MJ, has you seem to have participated in the maintenance of the latter page, what do you think of that? Of course, we'll first need to bring the ftp-master page up to date. Also, I think Charles' idea of also publishing stats about which licenses are currently found in main/non-free would be useful. It can be toned down wrt the claim that "these licenses are DFSG-free" and presented as mere factual data of what we currently have in the archive. Doing it on the basis of machine parseable debian/copyright sounds reasonable and might further encourage adopting the new format. Any taker for writing a script that gather the corresponding statistics? > That said, it is clear it can't be the FTP Team who is doing the work > - the oh-so-recentness of it shows that it is a task that won't get > done. There is too much else for us and we are few people only. > > But we would be happy to work with / lead / whatever-one-names it with a > group of volunteers together. Exact details of how that works out are to > be found, but im sure we can. If there are volunteers for it... Fair enough. Of course good part of the work will be reviewing the licenses that are already found in the archive and marking them as DFSG-free in your table. Which "review status" would you (as in ftp-masters & assistants) want for those licenses? More generally, is there a specific work-flow, or state chart, you want to follow? That would help in proposing patches to the ikiwiki repo... The other big part of it is keeping up to date with future DFSG-free-ness ruling by ftp-masters. As pointed out in this thread, you usually send motivated REJECTs to maintainer only. How would you like to proceed to keep track of motivation for new licenses? Is Cc:-ing -project, as you did for the Ubuntu Font License and then indexing a link to the list archives something that would work for you? If not, what would? Thanks for this enlightening pointer to related work, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature