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

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 07/17/17 at 09:00am, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> Indeed. things under GPL 2 (notice the lack of "+"/"or later") can't
> adapt/depend on things under GPL 3.
> 
> Things under both GPL 2 and its "+"/"or later" version can't
> adapt/depend on things under Apache 2.0. However, things under GPL 3 and
> its "+"/"or later" version can.

I'm not fond of moving to GPLv3, first off, we'd have to ask all
contributors to agree to it right?

But something I can see do-able, is moving away from
bootstrap-typeahead.js to horsey which is MIT licensed. [1]

> - "visualize/static/visualize.js" is licensed under GNU GPL 2 (assumed to be 
> "only" because the license notice in the file doesn't tell if there is an 
> upgrade possibility).

This is part of archweb, so GPLv2

> - "mirrors/static/mirror_status.js" is licensed under GNU GPL 2 (assumed to 
> be "only" because the license notice in the file doesn't tell if there is an 
> upgrade possibility).

This is part of archweb, so GPLv2

[1] https://github.com/bevacqua/horsey

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-projects] [namcap] Question about transient dependencies

[Emil Velikov via arch-projects]

On 8 August 2017 at 23:20, keenerd  wrote:
> Above all we're grown-ups who can weight the pros and cons on a case
> by case basis and make their own decisions as appropriate.  I'm glad
> that Arch Linux has gotten so good that this is the worst issue you
> can find, but that doesn't mean it is worth "fixing".
>
Agreed it's not the biggest issue in the world. I've had official
packages break as somewhere down the tree dependency X was removed.
That I believe it something that should be fixed in it's root.

To my earlier question - "has it been discussed before" a clear "no,
it hasn't" would have been great.
A "newcomers are not the best people to start such threads" would also suffice.

> Furthermore, I refuse to be trolled into bikeshedding over how to best
> remove anti-bikeshedding measures.
>
By being humble and sincere my reply comes as trolling?
Sounds like you had to deal with a bit too many trolls.

So be it.
Emil