Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (491 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] muffin
  • From: Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:06:38 +0000
  • Message-id: <>
Do you want to maintain them? I can easilly find something else to do.

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

  * 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.


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 Reidinger
Software Engineer Appliance Department

SUSE LINUX, s. r. o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Nelson Marques

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

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups