repo-criteria-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org


From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:55:21 -0400

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:05:22 +0200 Hein-Pieter wrote:
> Checking each individual file is not even remotely feasible.
> However the rule that they *should* all be licensed exists.

that touches on another point, which i did not mention (because
it is a weak one) - in terms of practicality, the criteria
_effectively_ is: "insists on the GPL"; because, in practice,
99% of code under permissive licenses does not identify the
license of each file - it is an unfortunate matter of the
cultural norm - the end-effect of enforcing A9, would be that
the admin would remove nearly all was permissively-licensed
software

again, thats a weak excuse for watering-down A9; but it is
realistic - there are tools now, such as 'REUSE', which help
people maintain clear licensing; but it is not likely to gain
wide-spread, or even significant usage; because very few people
complain about lazy licensing, and people learn the habit in the
course of their formal education ("just slap a BSD on it, and yer
done - easy-peasy")



reply via email to

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