Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:11:40PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > If someone does go down the road, then any project creation on salsa
> > would possibly end up needing to be vetted by an admin (or a new team
> > doing this, or a combination of new team and NEW handling, as parts of
> > this surely could be merged then).
>
> If someone does go down the road, the most likely result will be to
> decommission salsa:
>
> With a bureaucratic process in place that might take weeks just for
> getting a new git tree approved, most people would consider external
> places like GitHub much more attractive and use these instead.
And what about badly licensed or wholly copyrighted by EvilCorp patches in
the BTS? Or even, whole tarballs attached to bug reports?
Or the mailing list, for that matter. You also can have attachments, or put
short but sensitive pieces inline, like:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > There is an argument for this having changed now, with the new setup,
> > yes, but following that opens such a big can, I don't want to do this.
> > Thats something the DPL might want to get some informed (ie. lawyers)
> > opinion on, how free that service can be.
> >
> > I would love for the outcome of that to be something like "It's fine if
> > open, as long as there is a contact that quickly disables reported
> > $legalfoo violations".
You can't have basically any user contributions if you'd require
pre-approval. So, having just this one piece pre-approval rather than
removal-upon-report is inconsistent.
> > Also, in a way we do assume people NOT intentionally putting bad stuff
> > up, though the current system does make it farely easy to play bad here.
>
> This a fair assumption for the DD-only NEW, but not for salsa.
DDs are already trusted wrt adding extra stuff to existing packages, giving
them access to this temporary holding ground is reasonable. Anyone else,
even a DM, needs to seek a DD's review. Yet we allow anyone untrusted to
put any crap on Salsa.
Copyright is a bad enough drain on the world already, let's not suffer more
due to a tight _inconsistent_ interpretation.
Plus, there's already a mechanism for removing things from NEW. There's a
fat button emblazoned with "REJECT" in all-caps.
Meow!
--
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ
Reply to: