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

Bug#122929: wpoison to be included in Debian

In message <[🔎] 20011210100216.A525@aragorn>, you wrote:

>> I like having more publicity for my work, but Wpoison is only a very
>> imperfect method of combatting spam.  I am working now on better things.
>so you think wpoison is somewhat obsolete? if you're working on another
>free CGI to combat spam, I'd be glad to package it.

Not a CGI... A whole mail system.

And it won't be ready for some time yet.

And it won't be free.

>> How will you arrange things so that the people who install the script,
>> for example, from a Debian CD, will be properly informed that as a
>> condition of installing the thing they must put the small Wpoison
>> icon and the associated link on their home pages?
>That can be arranged. There's no way to enforce it but a
>heavily noticeable message can be displayed.

OK.  That would be Good.

Please do that.

>> I suspect that at present, whatever tool or tools are used to install
>> optional packages, e.g. from a Debian CD, probably do not make any
>> special effort to show any of the license terms and coonditions to
>> the person who is installing the package.
>> Is that true?
>> Is there some way that you _can_ show some sort of text message to a
>> person who is about to install an optional package?
>yes, in Debian there's an interface layer that packages use to communicate
>with the user. It's called debconf. The layer provides an aspect of the
>choice, currently some text-based ones and a GTK+ interface.
>Every template can be input with different priorities. I can display your
>advertising clause with 'critical' priority; it will be always displayed
>the user is running the 'noninteractive' frontend. But believe me this is
>a *very* rare thing since it implies ignoring every 'critical' message from
>debconf and can result in a broken system.

OK.  Good.

So will you please set up the packages so that the installer sees the
part of the copyright that says that he/she must put the icon and link
on their home page?

>> If there is such a method, then I would simply ask that you use that
>> existing mechanism to show the user the ``advertising clause'' from my
>> license, preferably BEFORE the install actually takes place (but after-
>> wards would be OK too).
>Are you sure this is required? The normal thing is to call it from the
>script and this script is called... well it depends on the users'

The current version of Wpoison is written in Perl.  (You have that right?
It is version 1.07.)  because of that, there is no need for any configuring
of the thing, and thus no need for any configuration step.

>But even if the message is displayed before the installation, and the user
>decides not to use wpoison, the file will be installed at the end. However
>it's done. you'll need to relay on users' goodwill to comply with your

I understand that.

>I don't think the kind of person who installs wpoison would ever feel pain
>in complying with the ad clause, but rather just doesn't know of its
>He who wants to fight spam by installing wpoison, will likely want to fight
>spam by promoting it.

I hope so.

>> I am not sure that is true, but it is not important.  I hereby grant
>> permission for anyone using my Wpoison script to use and/or copy the
>> logo.gif file also.  (I would have been more explicit about this small
>> matter before now, but I do not know how to attach any sort of a copy-
>> right statement to a GIF file. :-)
>There's no need IMHO, redistribution of the logo is not covered by
>wpoison's license since it is a separate file. You could consider that if
>you distributed the whole thing in a tarball.
>In my opinion, It'd be enough to modify the 4th clausse to say that one
>can either use the remote image from your site or mirror it.

Do I have to?

I am very lazy and very busy.

>> I will allow redistribution of the logo as a PNG format file.
>With referring to a remote .png location instead of the .gif one in the
>license would be fine.

I do not have a PNG version on my site however.... only the GIF.

If you really feel that I absolutely need to make changes in the language
of the (current) copyright/license, then please send me context diffs of
what you suggest.

>> Will you convert the existing GIF file to PNG, or did you want or expect
>> me to do that step?
>> If you could do it, I would appreciate that, and it would make things go
>> faster, I think, because I'm very busy just now, and I don't know when
>> I could do it.
>no problem, got a 'gif2png' tool for that purpose. I'm attaching a PNG
>version of your logo.

Can you just put that into the package you are creating (please)?

Another question:  Is there any degradation when converting from GIF to
PNG?  If so, then maybe I should go back to my original icon work... saved
in Ulead PhotoImpact 5... and export it again, but this time as a PNG.
(Actually I don't even know if PhotoImpact will do that... export to a
.PNG file... but I can check if it is important.)

Reply to: