nixers community git - Community & Forums Related Discussions
evbo
I like pizza's idea a lot, it's based on how most major (non-github) OSS development is done and gives people who have no patching experience a taste of that workflow, but in a less "stressful" environment then major projects like Linux or a BSD.
z3bra
I would just want to make an objection here. Even if we create such a maillist, to send patches, expose new releases, yadayada... It will be useless.
We don't have enough participation yet to justify a maillist. That's a fact. Only 3 projects live:
* one personnal project from tmplt
* one "community project" with only 2 persons involved for now
* one dependant from all other projects

Please make this repo live! Contribute, push code, check out other people work, submit ideas! This repo is the opportunity to build something together, let's not just build a whole infra that nobody will use...
Get involved!
pizzaroll1
Yeah that's why I said we can just do this stuff on the forum for now. A mailing list would be nice, but it seems as if people did not consider enough the next sentence where I said a mailing list is overkill, and the last sentence where I said I wasn't specifically advocating for mailing lists.

Anyway, I'll continue working on the ports repo. Maybe I'll start my own project if I get an idea.

Something I wanted to do (but I need permission from the copyright holders, "the iotek dev team") is to relicense urnn as ISC, clean it up (make it put all it's scripts in /usr/local/libexec, run from /usr/local/bin, copy the data from /usr/local/share/urnn to ~/.urnn if it doesn't exist and use that, etc. It's a cool, useful program, and I want it to be packageable.

I could just do all of that and leave the license as-is, but then no-one could include it in their repos.

I'll get started on that. But let this be a warning to all users of git.nixers.net: pick a sensible license! There are plenty out there, just choose one instead of writing your own!! (and WTFPL isn't a license)
jkl
(02-08-2017, 09:05 PM)pizzaroll1 Wrote: (and WTFPL isn't a license)

It actually is, explicitly defining Public Domain in countries which don't have implicit Public Domain. I deliberately choose the WTFPL for all of my (software) things for two reasons:

1) I don't care about what happens with my software as I don't make money with it anyway, nor do I want to have to care about that.
2) I don't intend to enforce anything. A license that contains "you must" and/or "you must not" is restrictive by definition. Even the ISC License - a generally fine license, I admit - violates this to some extent by forcing developers to add copyright and license things into their code which nobody will ever read anyway.

Which license - except the WTFPL - does this and why should it be a better choice?

edit: Also, WTFNMFPL if you live in one of those "I'll sue you" countries; but seriously, that's already too much text. Note that licenses should actually be read before using a software. Nobody will read this. (This also applies to the CC0 legal text.)

The WTFPL has exactly one easy clause. Beat that.
pizzaroll1
What I perhaps meant to say was that the WTFPL isn't a sensible license.

The problem is, for anyone who wants their software to be used by anyone, the WTFPL is dangerous since it doesn't include a disclaimer clause. You say "one of those "I'll sue you" countries", but the reality is that basically every country is potentially an "I'll sue you" country, and if I ran some open source project, I wouldn't want to live in fear of being taken to court because I failed to choose a good license.

I am not telling you to stop using WTFPL because I don't like it or something (although I don't). I am advising you to stop using it because it puts you at unnecessary risk.

If you like the ISC license, just take it and delete the "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." bit. The license is widely accepted, provides adequate protections to you, and places no restrictions on the users (if you delete that one clause).

I don't see why anyone would want to use the WTFPL. The OSI rejected it because it didn't add anything new to already existing licenses (it's just a more ambiguous and less safe version of some permissive licenses). It's plain to see that it was written as nothing more than anti-GPL satire and should be treated as such (i.e. not seriously).

Sure you can use it, no-one will stop you. But I would never want my name on a project without a real disclaimer and neither does any software author, really.
venam
(02-08-2017, 09:18 PM)jkl Wrote: Which license - except the WTFPL - does this and why should it be a better choice?
I think we've discussed this already you and I when I made the research about licenses.
There's the CC0, Creative Common 0, here it is.
It's a bit more "professional" to waiver your right, let's say, than to have a "wtf" in your license.

Between, you even said the following, in the podcast discussion:
Quote:Note that, unlike other Public Domain licenses, the WTFPL does not have a liability clause so you could still be sued if your WTFPL'd application causes any damage. (Not proven yet.)
Which is your own arguments against the wtfpl.
venam
If anyone is up for the tasks (simple ones), I'd like to test the ascii2svg script with different kinds of ascii/ansi files and update it.

It still needs to have configurations for some tuning like choosing the font and color scheme to use.
Maybe this could be made so that the colors are extracted from the Xresources or that there's a flag to use the default ANSI colors.

The font and other metadata could also be extracted from the SAUCE line.
Maybe the usual ascii-artsy fonts (Topaz, P0T-NOoDLE, MicroKnight, mO'sOul) could be linked somehow.

Once that's done I think it'll be good for packaging.
z3bra
Aaaaah Licenses. What a waste of time :D

I used WTFPL for long because it's cool. Then gave up when I started to care about people seeing my projects and use them (having a real license makes your program look more professional).
I'm now down to use two licences: ISC (when I want to keep it) and UNLICENSE (when I don't). This way people are happy and stop bothering me about my license, so they focus on the code itself :)

(03-08-2017, 02:32 AM)venam Wrote: If anyone is up for the tasks (simple ones), I'd like to test the ascii2svg script with different kinds of ascii/ansi files and update it.

It still needs to have configurations for some tuning like choosing the font and color scheme to use.
Maybe this could be made so that the colors are extracted from the Xresources or that there's a flag to use the default ANSI colors.

You can use the motd and xero's lab for it!
venam
(03-08-2017, 04:06 AM)z3bra Wrote: You can use the motd and xero's lab for it!
Most of those aren't ascii/ansi art, they are shell scripts.
Another TODO would be to add support for UTF-8 but that's not standard in ascii-art.
Tmplt
Bookwyrm is currently licensed under the GPLv3+, mostly because pybind11 is as well. Will this cause trouble during packaging?




Members  |  Stats  |  Night Mode