Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (491 mails)

[Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx>]

Josef,

Previously to your reply I had already introduced the text from the
old SUSE copyright headers regarding the license of the spec file,
assigning it to the pristine source license as long as it's compliant
with OSI otherwise to become MIT.

The thing is, I don't do religion like many people around, because
religion is -evil-. If I want to condition my packages for
non-commercial usage I should be able to do it as we don't have a
contributors license agreement, just a plain code of conduct for
social/civil purposes.

Furthermore, about SUSE people... Many time ago there was 'quvi' which
was required upgrades to fix a few dependencies (totem-pl-parser)...
I've updated it and fixed the bug and became maintainer of the
package. Later that package was hijacked, commits were made rebellious
to me will... So please, I have all the reasons for not wanting my
packages to be enabled in SLE, because they can be victimized by the
same arrogance of some commiters who haven't learned to respect others
work.

Best of luck,
NM





2012/2/7 Josef Reidinger <jreidinger@xxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:06:38 +0000
> Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Do you want to maintain them? I can easilly find something else to do.
>
> Hi,
> I don't decrease your credit. I just don't see any benefit from
> restricting usage. Of course people have different reason why contribute
> to open-source and it is up to you what license you choose. Just I want
> to point out, that for improving open source software is not good way to
> restrict usage of your work. From my POV is good to force anyone to
> share his improvements to software ( GPL ) so you can also benefit
> from it, but I don't see much benefit from restricting usage ( but you
> are free to choose anything ).
>
> Josef
>
>
> > 2012/2/7 Josef Reidinger <jreidinger@xxxxxxx>:
> > > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:56:37 +0000
> > > Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Christian,
> > > >
> > > > True, I'm aware of that header... Though I just believe that a
> > > > general CLA (Contributors License Agreement) would be a better way
> > > > out for openSUSE contributions and kill the overhead of having to
> > > > write headers. That way packages wouldn't be declined because of
> > > > this, which would:
> > > >
> > > >   * improve the submission process;
> > > >   * save time to reviewers and contributors;
> > > >   * easy to account for contributions;
> > > >   * provide differentiation between contributors and members
> > > > (instead of the dumb solution being presented by the board
> > > > segregating members, which I totally disagree, while making
> > > > members a voting class and contributors a more free class would be
> > > > better, unless I'm trying to artificially manipulate statistics).
> > > >   * ease of usage;
> > > >   * etc etc
> > > >
> > > > I've added a small text establishing that the spec has the same
> > > > licenses as the pristine source (which can make it also a not so
> > > > free license for some cases). About the CC, the NC was intended
> > > > exactly for the reason you mention, so my packages wouldn't be
> > > > integrated in a commercial linux from which I earn nothing and
> > > > some of them could introduce added value. Either way I haven't
> > > > chose this road and complied with the previous old fashioned way,
> > > > which sounds good to me.
> > > >
> > > > NM
> > >
> > > OK, so you want NC, so if we want to include package in SLE it just
> > > mean, that we cannot use your spec. but how can we recognize that
> > > packager doesn't look at your spec? Also question is what is your
> > > added value except collection data and write it to metadata which
> > > RPM build understand. Package name, version, license, description is
> > > usually taken from package homepage so not your data. Patches
> > > usually ( depending on license of package ) are under same license
> > > as package and they are not part of spec. So only remaining part is
> > > scripts inside spec and files section. Scripts are usually trivial
> > > text modification which is hard to recognize who do it first or if
> > > it is copied or reinvented ( of course there is some exceptions ).
> > > So remains files. Do you think that your files section is so
> > > important that you cannot use it?
> > >
> > > Another question is who benefit from it? If package is included in
> > > commercial linux it means, that there is dedicated person who spend
> > > part of their work-time to improve such package, so package benefit
> > > from ( upstream and also our spec file and also opensuse, because
> > > opensuse is base for commercial linux, so we fix also factory
> > > package ). So if you make your spec NC there is chance that
> > > commercial linux doesn't use it or maintainer need to spend part of
> > > their time to create new one instead of improving package.
> > >
> > > And last think that comes to my mind ( I am not layer or license
> > > expert ) what means that build metadata is under NC? That we should
> > > not build it for money? But in commercial linux you don't pay for
> > > packages, but for support. So it doesn't make much sense for me.
> > >
> > > Josef
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josef Reidinger
> > > Software Engineer Appliance Department
> > >
> > > SUSE LINUX, s. r. o.
> > > Lihovarska 1060/12
> > > 190 00 Praha 9
> > > Czech Republic
> > >
> > > jreidinger@xxxxxxxx
> > > SUSE
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> --
> Josef Reidinger
> Software Engineer Appliance Department
>
> SUSE LINUX, s. r. o.
> Lihovarska 1060/12
> 190 00 Praha 9
> Czech Republic
>
> jreidinger@xxxxxxxx
> SUSE



-- 
Nelson Marques

/* http://www.marques.so
  nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx */
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx