This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Contributing license information?
David Sastre wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:50:45PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:Maybe.
On Oct 25 12:00, Luke Kendall wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:Sure, why not, if that's ok with David. You can also rip out the
On Aug 19 11:09, Luke Kendall wrote:Is usr/share/doc/common-licenses/ within the "base-files" package,
Just create a new package for the distro which keeps the information
Soon, I will have prepared a list of the location of every license
file in every Cygwin package. My motivation is to make it easy for
people to find the license information, if they need it.
(Preparing this information has required a lot of work on my part,
so I would be happy if something could be done to make it easy to
keep the information up to date as packages are added and modified.)
What is the best way to contribute the license-location information
so it can be integrated into Cygwin?
and maintain it. Somebody will have to keep the information up to date
supposed to be the place where all license information is collected?
Should I just use that instead of creating a new package?
usr/share/doc/common-licenses directory from base-files and create
a licenses package with all licenses. Just as you two want it.
There's also another solution: include licensing information within
base-files, and co-mantain it. It's already under version control.
Luke, if it's ok with you, I'd go this way.
Before I agree, let me be frank and say that I would still prefer for
the license information to be stored in the setup.ini information for
each package in a "licenses:" section, and I would love to see the
Cygwin package submission process to include the adding of the license
information as an explicit step.
But, if that's not possible/acceptable, then I think the above proposal
is a reasonable workaround, even though it means more work overall,
especially ongoing work.
I also don't look forward to maintaining the information, but I'm
prepared to wait and see how much work it is. If I can automate the
effort required for updates, then that would be a good result.
So, I agree with Dave's suggestion. Should we try to clarify what we
mean by "licensing information"?
I think it includes:
1) (Each version of) the licenses themselves (in whatever form they are
provided: .txt, PDF, ...)
2) Information about what licenses are used in each package (including
which version of the license)
3) To achieve (2), that means we have to have some way (a name) to refer
to each license.
Let's also think about how and when the license information gets updated.
It may need updating when any package is updated, since it is possible
that the license can change as part of a version change. (The change
could be a change to the wording, or it could be a shift to a new
version of a license, or the inclusion of other sub-components with
their own license, etc. etc.)
But that means "base-files" may need to change on a daily basis. There
will probably be a time lag in updating the license info if it is not
updated at the same time that setup.ini is updated with the new
packages. Is setup.ini re-created automatically when a package is updated?
The problem gets more complex if you consider that setup.ini can refer
to multiple package versions, and there may have been license changes
between the versions.
Those are further reasons I think it's more elegant to add the license
info to the setup.ini file. But is the setup.ini creation currently
automated? If so there will be some occasions where the license info
can't be automatically updated (and will require some human thought to
fill in details).
What do you think?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple