IRC Logs for #crux-devel Tuesday, 2013-12-03

Romsterprt-get info spice-protocol01:33
Romster:)01:33
*** sepen has quit IRC02:13
*** nkris has joined #crux-devel02:46
*** nrxtx has quit IRC02:49
*** mavrick61 has quit IRC03:50
*** _mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel03:51
frinnstasdf, forgot to update some ports yesterday07:34
frinnstour ck4up mail arrives too early for me to catch it, then i forget in the evening :)07:34
*** Romster has quit IRC07:55
*** Romster has joined #crux-devel07:58
*** nkris has quit IRC08:14
*** Romster has quit IRC08:19
*** Romster has joined #crux-devel08:27
*** pitillo has joined #crux-devel10:51
jaegerrandom packager question - should we be maintaining a set of licenses in a crux install for software installed?14:37
jaegersteam, for example, has a EULA/install agreement, I wonder if we need to retain that when it's installed14:37
Romsteri've never bothered with those things.14:56
Romsterhonestly couldn't careless as long as the Pkgfile works.14:56
jaegerI don't personally care at all but I wonder if it's a violation of the agreement not to keep those around15:04
prologicwhat purpose do they serve?15:28
prologicas long as individual users are not violating license I don't see a problem15:28
prologicand it's up to users of crux15:28
prologicnot the crux develpment team's responibility ihmo15:29
prologicas far as I'm concerned a file containing legal license text is useless and wastes hard disk sapce15:29
jaegerI'm not sure about that. Don't know the full details but it may be packager's responsibility15:29
prologicwhat's more improtant is that you repsect the terms and conditions of the license in the first place15:29
jaegerWhether or not it wastes space isn't the question15:29
jaegerWhether or not it's legal/compliant is15:29
prologicdunno15:29
prologicusually most licensees require that the license file be present15:30
prologicor that you should have been shipped a copy of it15:30
prologicbut it gets a bit hazy when you're repacking I guess15:30
prologictechnically speaking you can still obtain the originl source15:30
prologicand the original license15:30
prologicso what (if anything) would be violated?15:31
jaegerThat probably depends on the individual license15:32
prologicyeah15:33
prologicfact is though the license is there15:33
prologicin the source tarball15:33
prologicthe fact we don't copy it to the file system when installed15:33
prologicwell hmm15:33
prologicwe could always consulst a lawyer :)15:34
jaegerSuppose as an example the license says "a copy of this license must be present with installed software"15:34
jaegerWe would be in violation of that15:34
prologictrue15:37
prologicI suppose15:37
prologicare there any licenses that say that?15:37
jaegerNo idea15:37
prologice.g: https://bitbucket.org/circuits/circuits/src/tip/LICENSE15:39
prologicthe MIT License15:39
prologicsays nothing about keeping a copy of the license file as such15:39
prologicbut more the copyright notice15:39
prologicand relates to modified works15:40
prologicThe above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included15:40
prologicin all copies or substantial portions of the Software.15:40
jaeger:P15:42
teK_as a matter of fact: debian DOES ship license files15:42
prologicindeed they do15:43
teK_ok they're weirdos but still they probably have a reason15:43
prologicand religiously so15:43
jaegerarch does as well in some cases15:43
prologiccould just be convention for them15:43
prologicbut then again15:43
prologicDebian likes to comply with lots of laws15:43
prologicand cover their asses15:43
prologichistorically I don't think crux has ever doen this though right?15:44
prologicshould we start now?15:44
prologicshould we consult a proper opinion from a lawyer? :)15:44
teK_the question is a) are we required (probably) to? b) how likely is a violation to getnoticed15:44
prologica) sketchy at best depending ont he license type15:45
prologicsome wordings are different to others15:45
prologicb) probably very unlikely15:45
prologicwho uses crux anyway :)15:45
prologiconly weirdos like us :)15:45
prologicjaeger, I think the short answer is simply this15:46
prologicif you think it should be included15:46
prologicinclude it15:46
teK_we should have a consistent policy on that (if the policy says that there is  no policy)15:46
jaegerIt's unlikely to get noticed, I imagine, but I care about the quality of the distribution15:47
jaegerleaving out required things because we feel like it isn't a good decision, to me15:47
prologicwell15:47
prologicI don't think license files shipped in the binary package adds much quality ihmo15:47
prologicbut I agree with teK_ we should have a policy on this15:47
prologiceven if that says "We have no policy"15:48
jaegerThe "quality" in this case is adhering to the requirements/wishes of the software authors15:50
prologic*nods*15:50
prologicin this particular case if the license/terms requires the file to exist in the isntallation15:51
prologicI'd say repsect that15:51
prologicotherwise for most other licenses I've ever seen, no such requirement exists15:51
jaegerI'll suggest that if we run into licenses that require it, use a standard location such as /usr/share/licenses/$name15:53
prologicin the policy?15:55
prologicyeah good idea15:55
prologicI guess the policy should also say15:55
prologic"If you're not sure, include the license anyway"15:55
prologicjust to cover ourselves15:56
prologicmost OSS licenese I think you're pretty safe to exclude from the binary package as long as they're retained in the source tarball (which they are)15:56
jaegerThey may not be useful to a running system but the end user can remove them if they so choose15:56
teK_prologic has a point, we don't ship binary packages (yet?) so the download (temporarily, heh..) includes the  license15:58
jaegertrue, but what if the source is removed after the package gets built and installed but the author requires the license to be kept?15:58
prologicis it our duty to keep our crux citizens in check?16:00
prologicand compliant?16:00
teK_it's not16:00
prologicif they remove the license file after the install?16:00
jaegerNo, not at all16:00
teK_it's the user's action16:00
prologicisn't that the same as they remove the source tarball?16:00
prologicwhich brings me to my original point16:01
jaegerIf we're required by the source to ship a license file and the user removes it, fine16:01
prologicit's still in the source tarball16:01
prologicwhether the user removes it or not16:01
jaegerbut if we don't ship it we're doing it wrong16:01
jaegerIt depends on the wording of the license16:01
jaegerIf the license doesn't require that, fine16:01
prologicyeah precisely16:01
prologicthe license would have to say something like16:01
prologic"a copy of this license must be present on installed media"16:01
prologicor similar16:01
prologicin order to warrent packaging up the license file16:02
jaegerIf we use a central location, too, then the user is free to disable installs of /usr/share/licenses in pkgadd.conf or whatever, makes it easy16:02
prologicyeah16:09
frinnstWhy not just include the license with the port like radeon-ucode?16:31
frinnstcalling the license for "README" is not optimal though, maybe add "LICENSE" magic for prt-get ?16:32
frinnstor "LEGAL", or somesuch16:33
jaegerThat would probably be fine, too. I guess it would be a matter of preference at that point. Do we include it in the port dir itself (mandatory) or do we include it in the installed package (user can opt out)16:34
prologicboth16:58
prologicbut only if required16:59
prologicand if not sure, do it anyway16:59
prologicmy 2c16:59
*** sudobaal has joined #crux-devel20:55
*** horrorStruck has joined #crux-devel21:21
*** nrxtx has joined #crux-devel22:38
nrxtxhi22:38
jaegerheyo22:50

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!