headers
Thorsten Glaser | 2 Jul 2004 16:33
Picon

[RESEND] Re: [PATCH] UTF-8 for OpenBSD/MirOS/ekkoBSD, jupprc, -Wall -Werror -Wformat clean, ...

Dixitur illum tg@... scribere...

>Hello Joe, hello others,
>
>I've done quite a few things lately when porting joe-3.1 to
[ snip ]

I bumped the max mail length mark and got no reply from the
list admin for some days now, so I've uploaded the full mail
to https://mirbsd.bsdadvocacy.org:8890/joe-patch-0.gz

That mail is in unix/mbox format as I sent it, so displaying
ought to not be a problem.
I'd be glad if I get feedback, or that diff even got applied.

cu
//Thorsten
--

-- 
Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de,
gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net,
postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk,
tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Benny Siegert | 4 Jul 2004 21:36
Picon

Problems with new "update-patches" logic in ports

Hello,

here is the output I obtained when doing "make update-patches" in 
net/libshout. You see:

 * It throws away OpenBSD's rcsids.
 * It gives sed errors.

The resulting files have neither $MirBSD$ nor $OpenBSD$ at the top.

amiras$ pwd
/usr/ports/net/libshout
amiras$ make update-patches
Processing src/avl/avl.c...
sed: 1: "/^--- src\\/avl\\/avl.c ...: command a expects \ followed by text
--- patch-src_avl_avl_c 2003-08-17 13:30:36.000000000 +0000
+++ patch-src_avl_avl_c.new     2004-07-04 19:31:48.000000000 +0000
 <at>  <at>  -1,6 +1,5  <at>  <at> 
-$OpenBSD: patch-src_avl_avl_c,v 1.1.1.1 2003/07/26 11:38:50 sturm Exp $
---- src/avl/avl.c.orig 2003-07-26 09:07:59.000000000 +0200
-+++ src/avl/avl.c      2003-07-26 09:10:35.000000000 +0200
+--- src/avl/avl.c.orig 2003-07-07 03:37:01.000000000 +0000
++++ src/avl/avl.c      2004-07-04 19:31:14.000000000 +0000
  <at>  <at>  -987,11 +987,11  <at>  <at>  avl_verify_balance (avl_node * node)
      long lh = avl_verify_balance (node->left);
      long rh = avl_verify_balance (node->right);
Patch patch-src_avl_avl_c for src/avl/avl.c updated
Processing src/thread/thread.c...
sed: 1: "/^--- src\\/thread\\/th ...: undefined label 
'hread\\/thread.c.orig/,$d'
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 4 Jul 2004 21:39
Picon

Re: Problems with new "update-patches" logic in ports

Dixitur illum bsiegert@... scribere...

>sed: 1: "/^--- src\\/avl\\/avl.c ...: command a expects \ followed by text

>-$OpenBSD: patch-src_avl_avl_c,v 1.1.1.1 2003/07/26 11:38:50 sturm Exp $

Both fixed in v1.7, please continue testing, thanks.

//Thorsten
--

-- 
Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de,
gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net,
postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk,
tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 6 Jul 2004 10:53
Picon

licence problem with langinfo code

Hi!

In http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/joe-editor/joe-current/utf8.c?r1=1.16&r2=1.17&diff_format=u
I notice the following licence tag copied from a
file of yours:

+ * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
+ * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
+ * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
+ * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
+ *
+ * Latest version:
+ *
+ *   http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/langinfo.c

Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or
without fee", because the former
a) could be interpreted to prohibit commercial redistribution
   (such as including a joe package on a CD of MirOS)
b) is incompatible with the GNU GPL, thus prohibiting to add
   your code to joe-editor at all
c) serves as a bad example.

Thanks in advance!
//Thorsten
--

-- 
Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de,
gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net,
postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk,
tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Brian Candler | 6 Jul 2004 11:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> + * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
> + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
> + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.

When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without
any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the
recipient"

> Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or
> without fee"

That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any
royalty", or "without compensation to the author".

That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution
only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so
he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL.

Regards,

Brian.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 6 Jul 2004 12:18
Picon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

Dixitur illum B.Candler@... scribere...

>On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> + * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
>> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
>> + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
>> + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
>
>When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without
>any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the
>recipient"

Of course, but if you're a lawyer, how would you interpret it
if he were the client? Or the BSA?

>> Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or
>> without fee"
>
>That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any
>royalty", or "without compensation to the author".

That would be _even_ better of course - it's just that the "with or
without fee" is a) the minimal change, and b) the commonly used term
for BSD-like licences.

>That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution

I don't think that; I've seen that clause elsewhere, too.

>only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Markus Kuhn | 6 Jul 2004 12:20
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

Brian Candler wrote on 2004-07-06 09:25 UTC:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > + * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
> > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
> > + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
> > + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
> [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/langinfo.c]
> When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without
> any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the
> recipient"
> 
> > Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or
> > without fee"
> 
> That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any
> royalty", or "without compensation to the author".
> 
> That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution
> only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so
> he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL.

Executive summary: It is free software, in any sense of the word free
that will not cause me to worry about legal issues.

I see that my attempt to keep the licence short and pain free was not
entirely successfull. Any suggestions for of good ready-to-use licence
that I could cut&paste or refer to there? I don't like to waste more
than a few lines of code for legalese and I don't want to bloat it with
ridiculous disclaimers that are not needed outside the US. From the ones
I looked at, I think
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Mikhael Goikhman | 6 Jul 2004 12:24
Favicon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

On 06 Jul 2004 10:25:32 +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > + * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
> > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
> > + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
> > + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
> 
> When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without
> any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the
> recipient"

I agree. I definitelly interpreted it as "without any mandatory
compensation to the author". If this is the actual meaning, then I
would remove the words "and without fee" completely to reduce any
misinterpretation.

It seems that Debian agrees with such interpretation too:

  http://www.google.com/search?q="for+any+purpose+and+without+fee"

OSI calls it "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer".

Regards,
Mikhael.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 6 Jul 2004 12:26
Picon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

(Again, please someone forward this mail to Markus)

Dixitur illum Markus.Kuhn@... scribere...

>I see that my attempt to keep the licence short and pain free was not
>entirely successfull. Any suggestions for of good ready-to-use licence
>that I could cut&paste or refer to there? I don't like to waste more
>than a few lines of code for legalese and I don't want to bloat it with
>ridiculous disclaimers that are not needed outside the US. From the ones
>I looked at, I think

https://mirbsd.bsdadvocacy.org:8890/cvs.cgi/src/usr.sbin/rdate/ntpleaps.h
-> revision 1.7 had a "standard" licence put on it; I was asked by
   the OpenBSD developers to do that

https://mirbsd.bsdadvocacy.org:8890/cvs.cgi/src/share/misc/licence.template
-> is what I personally use; it's EU-centric, but pretty short.
   On the other hand it doesn't have official OSI approval (though I
   got some feedback, and a lot of hints from the ifrOSS).

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/misc/license.template
-> an even easier one, "blessed" by the OpenBSD people, modified from an
   ISC template (thus would qualify for OSI as well, though I don't think
   mine doesn't). But it makes me feel uneasy, although I can't _prove_
   it's a copyleft-like licence.

These are your choices; other than that, looking at opensource.org
is obviously a good thing.

Good luck, thanks for replying!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 6 Jul 2004 12:28
Picon

Re: [joe] licence problem with langinfo code

Dixitur illum migo@... scribere...

>I agree. I definitelly interpreted it as "without any mandatory
>compensation to the author".

Everyone sees it that way, I think - but the OpenBSD people remind
developers that it can be interpreted differently, and you know,
in court and out on sea you're in god's hand.

That's why I asked for clarification.

//Thorsten
--

-- 
Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de,
gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net,
postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk,
tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane