[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[task #15760] Submission of WebSTUMP

From: Tristan Miller
Subject: [task #15760] Submission of WebSTUMP
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.4

Follow-up Comment #4, task #15760 (project administration):

[comment #3 comment #3:]
> But then many of the files themselves can embed the notices quite easily,
like queues/demo.newsgroup/dir_927745214_12598/HAPPY99.EXE or
demo/review.html. I think it isn't more impractical than putting the notices
to parts of programs; do I miss anything?

After reviewing the code in a bit more detail, I think you are right about the
files in the demo and doc directories, which (despite the incomplete HTML) are
standalone web pages, and so I have updated them accordingly.  But I think it
would be impractical, or at least very awkward, to put inline notices in the
other files for the following reasons:

1. The files in the queues/ and tmp/ directories are example newsgroup
articles which users manipulate as part of a simulated moderation scenario.
Such articles don't normally contain copyright and licence notices and so
adding them (even as custom headers) could be confusing to users, who might
mistakenly believe that the software inserts such messages into all its
output, even in real-world scenarios.

2. The files in config/ are configuration files, and the scripts that read
them do not have any provision for processing comments (behind which we would
need to hide the copyright/licence notices).

Also, keep in mind that my fellow maintainers and I have just taken over this
very old package, which has not been actively developed in over 20 years,
which has never conformed to the guidelines for GNU packages, and which is
written in such a way that bringing it into compliance will be (and indeed
already has been) a great effort.  At this time we want to do the absolute
minimum work required in order to get the package into a state where it can be
hosted by Savannah, in order that we can start to collaboratively fix all the
compliance issues (and bugs, and compatibility issues, and
outdated/questionable coding practices, etc.) with the benefit of the Savannah
infrastructure.  If this means using a permissible but suboptimal way of
recording copyright and licence notices, so be it.  We don't want to spend a
lot of time getting everything done absolutely perfectly when the code,
documentation, and associated files are going to get massively refactored in
the very near future.

(file #50027)

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: WebSTUMP.tar.gz                Size:235 KB


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]