[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

[Eli Schwartz]

On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in
> FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed.  :P
> 
> If that's the official position that the archweb team wants to take, I
> won't argue.

I dunno what jelle/angvp/the gang would say, I do know that my personal
opinion is markedly skewed. :p

But I have contributed precisely one commit to archweb ever:
https://github.com/archlinux/archweb/commit/6ffa5c4957812f3ee584205b6d11ce87885f9e6c

So don't take me as some primary indicator of the official position of
the archweb team.

>> *complaining about Parabola forking instead of contributing upstream*
> 
> Like I said, the primary purpose of maintaining a fork of archweb is
> to replace the Arch branding with Parabola branding so that we can use
> it as our website.  Obviously, we can't send that work upstream.
> 
> Of the other, would-be-upstreamable, changes that have gone in to the
> fork, they are mixed in the git history of the non-upstreamable
> changes, and buried in an absolute *mess* of merges and such; pulling
> and rebasing and amending an upstreamable patchset out of that is
> quite a bit of work (it was already that way when I inherited
> parabolaweb ~4 years ago)... it's been on my TODO list for longer than
> I'd care to admit.  FWIW, the `archweb-generic` branch in
> parabolaweb.git is intended to be changes that are upstreamable, but
> it needs some rebasing first.

As you can imagine, that is at least as frustrating to us as it is to
you. ;) Bear with us...

> This email thread is simply us forwarding a bug upstream:
> 
>   User: there's an issue in parabolaweb
> 
>   Me: if it's a real issue, it's also in upstream archweb, it should
>       be discussed there
> 
>   User: ok, I'll report it there. (*creates this email thread*)
> 
> This is just the beginning of us being better about contributing
> upstream.  This line of criticism here feels a bit like criticizing a
> fat guy at the gym--he knows he's fat and is trying to fix it, that's
> why he's at the gym.

Sounds great, I guess. I for one would be more than happy to see
(watching from the sidelines TBH) parabola become an involved
contributor to archweb and in general Arch projects (of which I am only
currently aware of some devtools stuff, by you).

It does feel somewhat awkward when a Parabola representative basically
shows up to talk about archweb and the only thing they seem to have to
talk about is "your licensing sucks, please fix it".
Of course it is entirely possible that Parabola members have engaged in
contributions I am unaware of, I haven't been watching arch-projects
*that* long... but still, looking at commit counts I don't see anything
which landed (except for the aforementioned devtools stuff).

It wasn't immediately apparent that Parabola was trying to upstream
things -- it is easy to assume instead that this is just Parabola being
a distro that places a primary focus on FSF principles and idealisms
raising an objection to something they feel violates those core values.

>> I'll be watching this list and the Pull Requests page on archweb's
>> github with anticipation. ;)
> 
> Wait, archweb is on GitHub? :P
> 
> Is a GitHub PR the preferred method, or is the usual git-send-email to
> this ML preferred?
> 
> (Though I have to be honest: this is on my TODO list, but fairly low
> priority on it)

Arch Linux has a Github organization: https://github.com/archlinux

A few things are mirrored there, and a couple new projects have their
primary home there.
Archweb specifically is primarily developed there via pull requests.
Unlike other Arch projects, it is the preferred workflow of archweb
developers/contributors.
Though I am sure git-send-email to this ML will still get through. :)

...

Whenever you have time to work on things would be great. ;)
I'm just happy now that you've clarified Parabola's intention to work
with us.

Consider my criticism withdrawn.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/attachments/20180115/e8d140bc/attachment.asc>