On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Is it ethically wrong for me as a Fedora packager to take an existing
spec file without an explicit license from another location as the
base for the spec file I plan to submit for review? The pit of my
stomach says no.
Is it ethically wrong for me to do so without giving credit to the
original spec file author?
The pit of my stomach says most likely.
What is the best way to give credit when re-basing the spec file for
fedora submission?
Well off the top of my head, I can do it in the changelog entry for
the specfile or I can do it in the cvs commit entry. Is either one
better than the other? And if there is a best practices method can we
make it part of the new submission checklist procedures to remind new
contributors that giving credit where credit is due for the spec file
helps make for healthier community relations?
Seems like most people agree with this.
Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and
therefore presumably public domain, spec files: "If you take a spec file
from someone else, be sure that attribution is included. If it is *not*
included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by <foo> at the
<bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, and the punishment
is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat of Schmuck." And yes,
put it in the review process.
As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot.
Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere
anyway.
--g
(And no, I don't have a Hat of Schmuck handy. But I might be able to fit
one in my budget.)
--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
