One of the things that I've wanted for taskotron is to keep the directive documentation inside the code for those directives - similar to how ansible does their documentation for modules [1].
[1] http://docs.ansible.com/modules_by_category.html Mike has been working on some code to make that happen [2] (be nice if you review - I asked him to cut as many corners as possible for the moment) that borrows heavily from ansible since the approaches have quite a bit of overlap. The potential issue here is license incompatibility - libtaskotron (and all of the other qa devel projects) are gpl2+ and ansible is gpl3. If we take code from ansible, we'll have to re-license libtaskotron as gpl3. [2] https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D93 I'm not against doing this in principle but putting my "license pedant" hat on for a moment, I don't think it'll be quite as simple as changing some text files. - I'm not 100% clear on whether gpl3 code can use gpl2 libraries. I'm under the impression that there is generally accepted leeway here in the case of dynamic languages like Python but I want to run this past FPC or Fedora legal first. - If gpl3 code can't use gpl2 libraries, we need to do a code audit to verify that we aren't using anything that's strictly gpl2 only. I did a quick check of libtaskotron and I think we're OK here but I haven't checked everything else. - Are we OK with saying "anything run by libtaskotron has to be gpl3 compatible"? This gets into another area that I'm personally fuzzy on (the line between derivative and usage) but I don't know of any gpl2-only or agpl libraries that we'd want to use with libtaskotron so this may end up being a non-issue entirely - This could cause problems if we share code between our other qa projects since they're all gpl2+. On the other hand, all contributions are gpl2+ so we can just re-license them as needed, assuming that they don't link to anything that's strictly gpl2. If we decide not to use the code in [2], we have 2 options for documentation: - completely re-implement the doc-building code in a way that avoids the license issue - find another way to do the directive documentation. I'd appreciate thoughts on the issues here. I'm leaning towards "re-license as gpl3 and take the code from ansible" but I could be missing some complication here. Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
