On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:13 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:01 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:45 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:51 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > > > On the topic of FPCA improvements, it would probably make sense (if > > > > > > > > the FPCA is retained) to replace the MIT license as the default code > > > > > > > > license with MIT No Attribution, aka MIT-0, recently approved by the > > > > > > > > OSI as an open source license: > > > > > > > > https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0 > > > > > > > > (which would also enable a minor simplification of the FPCA text). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would personally prefer we didn't. That has the knock-on effect of > > > > > > > making it possible for RHEL folks to not include Fedora changelogs > > > > > > > when they fork Fedora for RHEL, since the RPM changelogs are the only > > > > > > > attribution we actually *have* in the distribution. And I've > > > > > > > personally experienced very positive reinforcement for contributing to > > > > > > > Fedora and CentOS Stream by pointing to public attribution via changelogs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Neal here as a deep gut reaction. Recognition is important, > > > > > > even if it is buried pretty deeply from endusers. > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, uh, we trim changelogs, so if we're arguing that that's the > > > > > > attribution part, we have some digging through git history to do to repair > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat is going to have to fix *a lot* of the process around > > > > > Fedora->RHEL/CentOS if we're going to rely on Git history for > > > > > attribution. Especially if rpmautospec gets broader adoption. I was > > > > > personally pretty upset about how the c9s branches were forked from > > > > > Fedora Linux 34, where all the Fedora history was *gone*. I know that > > > > > it's still there in the internal RHEL Dist-Git, but the fact they > > > > > > > > You don't know that, and it's actually not there. > > > > > > > > This is what the import commits look like: > > > > > > > > commit eb6f429d3f0c2f41aa5bb7f8e5153668aa812553 > > > > Author: XXXX XXXXXX <XXXXXX@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Fri Oct 23 08:45:59 2020 -0700 > > > > > > > > RHEL 9.0.0 bootstrap > > > > > > > > The content of this branch was automatically imported from Fedora ELN > > > > with the following as its source: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc#90ca20fd0234925743db5e1e231b73b4a38749a9 > > > > > > > > then later > > > > > > > > commit df9ce2ff57e675edea493144401a1e1c9ed0f2b5 > > > > Author: DistroBaker <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Tue Dec 15 10:59:21 2020 +0000 > > > > > > > > Merged update from upstream sources > > > > > > > > This is an automated DistroBaker update from upstream sources. > > > > If you do not know what this is about or would like to opt out, > > > > contact the XXXX team. > > > > > > > > Source: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc.git#525dee4c87180db08e1776a > > > > d3cb0e66a9b38e81f > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are reality :) > > > > > > > > > > That is insufficient. And when rpmautospec based packages start coming > > > to RHEL, it'll be *definitely* insufficient because none of that will > > > make it into the generated spec file and built packages. > > > > That's 3 years down the road. Perhaps things can be improved between > > now and then. Fortunately, work done against RHEL now via CentOS > > Stream will have attribution in the MRs, etc. > > > > As long as you don't import any *new* packages during the EL9 > lifecycle where this problem occurs, yes, it's 3 years down the road. We're on a wild tangent now, but there are valid reasons we do not have the entire Fedora git history in an internal git instance despite many people expecting it. I doubt those are going to change during the life of RHEL 9. Also, I'm not concerned about rpmautospec Fedora packages. New imports into EL9 would import an SRPM, not from Fedora git. This is really a 3 year down the road thing. I can certainly understand and agree with the sentiment here, but I think we need to figure out a better way to show attribution in general. RPM changelogs are extremely arcane, and disjoint package git repos aren't really cutting it either. josh _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
