On 10/15/2010 09:35 PM, Dave Plater wrote:

On 10/15/2010 05:59 PM, Dave Plater wrote:

...

Hi, I'm trying to update multimedia:libs libcaca a quick check shows it's only required by gstreamer-0_10-plugins-good. I've had a good laugh after examining it, even the license is "WTFPL - Do What The F@#k You Want To Public License" - expletive deleted - and it has a large patch to delete the many other expletives scattered throughout the package which needs to be remade. So far I've searched for the F word and found 153 instances mostly due to the license header and comments in the changelog and a quick search for another slang word used for excretement only find 8 and once again these are merely comments. My question is - what are the chances of a faint hearted person going through the source rpm and as long as there isn't any actual display of naughty words during usage and the changelog is purged is it really necessary to patch all these words out? The name itself is naughty and seeing the authors penchant for french I'm sure some words that might offend a puritanical frenchman (are there any?) are still present in the package. I've had a good laugh but I'm not keen to take on the task of removing these words to update a package . My reason for doing this in the first place - the package is failing to build for factory. Thanks Dave P

I'm getting the package to build meanwhile and after getting the svn it seems that we have just made 0.99beta18 which should be released and it contains a document build fix, which is what the existing 0.99.beta16 package was failing on. I've checked the 0.99beta17 release to home:plater, if I'm breaking any rules please inform me and I'll delete the package. Dave P

The badwords patch was created for bnc#441358 which I can't access, if someone can let me know the content I can understand what to do in a case like this in future. Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 10/15/2010 11:06 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:45:09 +0200 Dave Plater wrote:

...

The badwords patch was created for bnc#441358 which I can't access, if someone can let me know the content I can understand what to do in a case like this in future.

I'm pretty sure that this was one of the famous IBM bugs where they complained about bad language.

Just drop the badwords patch. If IBM has nothing better to do, they can reopen that bug for SLES12... Nobody should care about such stuff for openSUSE.

I deliberately use the WTFPL for all my trivial software, just to annoy people like those IBM lawyers... :-)

I was considering emailing the patch author and asking him if he would wish to help. The package conventions have a statement about offensive stuff but I'm pretty sure that applies to what the user sees, is bitch x still in openSUSE? The patch actually alters the license statement headers in the source files, is that allowed? Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Oct 15, 10 23:06:03 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:45:09 +0200 Dave Plater wrote:

...

The badwords patch was created for bnc#441358 which I can't access, if someone can let me know the content I can understand what to do in a case like this in future.

I'm pretty sure that this was one of the famous IBM bugs where they complained about bad language.

Just drop the badwords patch. If IBM has nothing better to do, they can reopen that bug for SLES12... Nobody should care about such stuff for openSUSE.

I deliberately use the WTFPL for all my trivial software, just to annoy people like those IBM lawyers... :-)

The WTFPL succeeded in annoying IBM. We know that, as they came our way with a complaint. So you also keep suse legal team busy. A license statement is the wrong place for exercising freedom of speech. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "You are trying to use packages from project 'openSUSE:11.3'. Note that malicious packages can compromise your system." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 10/18/2010 06:44 AM, Michael Matz wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Juergen Weigert wrote:

...

...

Just drop the badwords patch. If IBM has nothing better to do, they can reopen that bug for SLES12... Nobody should care about such stuff for openSUSE.

I deliberately use the WTFPL for all my trivial software, just to annoy people like those IBM lawyers... :-)

The WTFPL succeeded in annoying IBM. We know that, as they came our way with a complaint. So you also keep suse legal team busy.

A license statement is the wrong place for exercising freedom of speech.

Actually it's one of the best places. While this is true, the above example is simply sophomoric.

-- Jim McDonough jmcdonough@suse.de jmcd@samba.org +49 911 74053 3944

On 10/19/2010 04:17 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:34:27 -0400 Jim McDonough wrote:

...

While this is true, the above example is simply sophomoric.

No, it is actually not. When I was still at SUSE, there was a rule saying: "nothing goes out without a license."

No matter how trivial the stuff was.

While this is a good idea in general, it just gets plain stupid to do this for every few trivial lines of code.

So I started to use the WTFPL for that. Because it is still shorter than every other license.

Ok, I admit, I did it not "just to annoy ...", but it was a nice bonus.

Have fun anyway ;-)

seife

Unfortunately licenses are necessary in today’s world of dog eat dog and even opensource needs to be protected from opertunists but for those of us who can't afford full time lawyers..., I wonder if WTFPL prevents patent sharks from hijacking your package? libcaca has brightened up my week anyway. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Dave Plater wrote:

On 10/19/2010 04:17 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:34:27 -0400 Jim McDonough wrote:

...

While this is true, the above example is simply sophomoric.

No, it is actually not. When I was still at SUSE, there was a rule saying: "nothing goes out without a license."

No matter how trivial the stuff was.

While this is a good idea in general, it just gets plain stupid to do this for every few trivial lines of code.

So I started to use the WTFPL for that. Because it is still shorter than every other license.

Ok, I admit, I did it not "just to annoy ...", but it was a nice bonus.

Have fun anyway ;-)

      seife

Unfortunately licenses are necessary in today’s world of dog eat dog and even opensource needs to be protected from opertunists but for those of us who can't afford full time lawyers..., I wonder if WTFPL prevents patent sharks from hijacking your package?

I don't see how it does much of anything. It says I can do anything I want to with a package. So I can take the libcaca package and license it under a commercial license and sell it. If I in turn try to sue you for using libcaca, you would have as much hassle I suspect as if libcaca had no license at all and I tried to sue you for using it. I really don't see a value in it at all, but I'm no lawyer. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Oct 20, 10 11:23:13 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:35:38 -0400 Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Dave Plater wrote:

...

us who can't afford full time lawyers..., I wonder if WTFPL prevents patent sharks from hijacking your package?

It does not. That's why I usually use it only for those trivial pieces of code that are obvious anyway.

It actually make them patent sharks happy, instead of annoying them. :-)

Basically the pieces of code that I would have licensed as "Public Domain". But unfortunately there is no such thing as "Public Domain" where I live IIUC, and there are lots of different definitions of "Public Domain" around the world.

Try Creative Commons CC0. CC0 does the trick, by saying: in the public domain, where public domain is possible, and otherwise it is to be handled as if it were in the public domain. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "You are trying to use packages from project 'openSUSE:11.3'. Note that malicious packages can compromise your system." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org