On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>> the following files in contrib/ do not have a licence:
>>> This prevents downstream distributors from packaging these files.
>>> Besides my other Subversion duties, I am maintaining the OpenBSD
>>> port of Subversion and cannot include these files if they do not
>>> have a licence.
>>> The authors, and committers who committed these files (there's
>>> some overlap) are in Cc. Please add a licence to your file[s].
>>> It's enough if you add them on trunk.
>>> I will take care of backporting the licences to the 1.5.x branch
>>> (unless anyone has a problem with that, but I doubt that's the case.)
>> We have gone through this before, Peter Samuelson regularly brings
>> this up because Debian has the same issue. So I suspect the files
>> that are left without a license have mostly done so because we cannot
>> assign one. It looks like a couple in your list might be new files
>> where a license was overlooked and could be updated.
>> Why don't we boot these files from trunk and our tarballs? We could
>> create a new top-level folder for them or just get rid of them
> Some of them are well documented, such a svn_load_dirs.pl.in, in the Svn
> book, so dropping it isn't a good idea.
> I think we should continue to distribute them and let the distibuters who
> care about them deal with removing the files from their packages.
> Also, in the case of svn_load_dirs, there is a Python port that has a
> license that was written by/for Debian.
So why couldn't we relocate these files and then replace them with a
file of the same name that points to the relocated file and explains
we do not include it because it does not have a license attached?
Received on 2008-12-03 15:15:41 CET