GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 699881
testbuild.sh - Builds GParted logging results
Last modified: 2013-09-18 16:49:52 UTC
Will upload patch containing the short testbuild.sh script for inclusion in GParted. Original discussion from the GParted forum thread: Test compiling every commit in a patch set using git-test-sequence http://gparted-forum.surf4.info/viewtopic.php?id=16867 Thanks, Mike
Created attachment 243549 [details] [review] Add testbuild.sh (v1) Hi Curtis, Here's the patch to add testbuild.sh script. The script isn't included in the distributed archive created by "make dist", which I think is correct. I'll post the draft documentation for the Git page on the GParted web site in the forum thread mentioned in above. Does testbuild.sh need a copyright notice with it being so small? It'll be larger than the code. Thanks, Mike
(In reply to comment #1) > Does testbuild.sh need a copyright notice with it being so small? > It'll be larger than the code. If we want others to be able to copy and modify the script then we need to also place copyright and license headers on the file. So, yes please do add the copyright notice and license to the script file.
Created attachment 243619 [details] [review] Add testbuild.sh (v2) Hi Curtis, For such a small script it seemed overkill to use GPLv2+ license so I used the text that the GNU auto* tools write at the top of the configure script. It's very liberal. Hope that's OK. Mike
Hi Mike, Thanks for mentioning the GNU auto* tools to look at as a reference. I took a peek at autoconf and even files such as AUTHORS, README, and NEWS have a copyright and license, though at the end of the file. The git tree for autoconf can be viewed at the following link: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=tree Many of the files include a Free Software Foundation copyright and a GPL v3 license. However, I did find some files that have shorter text such as you mentioned in comment #3. For example: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob;f=m4/autobuild.m4;h=3147b5b05ea950ad3b796eee19f9ced60e4fd43a;hb=HEAD http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob;f=m4/m4.m4;h=2c654b9f95211a46d3318c23ae63c6aa253e50b5;hb=HEAD However, there does not appear to be a single standard for the shortened text. Since many GParted files are also missing the copyright and license, I would like to clean this up. Is there a standard short-text that you propose we use for short script files? Or, should we simply place the GPL v2+ on each an every file that supports comments? Curtis
Hi Curtis, Sorry for letting this languish for a few weeks. Licensing is not my favourite topic. Looked at what we have already; all the source code is explicitly under the GPL v2+ (COPYING file) and the GParted Manual in explicitly under the GFDL v1.2+ (COPYING-DOC file). From my none legal view anything doesn't explicitly have a license should fall under the GPL v2+ because of what it says in the README file. COPYING ------- The copying conditions can be found in the file: COPYING Looking at the Linux kernel tree all the Documentation/ files and lots of scripts/ files don't have explicit licenses. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/ 1) My view is that this is OK. 2) Even if it isn't legally defensible do we really care if someone takes one of the other build, script, icon or text files? Some of the files in the autoconf package are deliberately under a non- GPL license to allow copying of the generated configure script into non-GPL packages. Autoconf README file, line 45 http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob;f=README;h=412340c887c6166e41384b03fec722474fd7fa6c;hb=HEAD#l45 I chose the liberal license as used in such an autoconf file because: 1) For the ~10 line testbuild.sh script I almost didn't mind what anybody would do with it; 2) It was already written presumably with legal help in the GNU to allow liberal use. I've also read this GNU document: How to choose a license for your own work http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html It references the GNU All-Permissive License which is compatible with the GNU GPL, and they recommend for GNU packages for the README and other small supporting files (under 300 lines). http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html I think that we should: A) Not add an explicit license to the rough documentation files: AUTHORS, README and NEWS files. B) Update the README file to make it clear that everything is licensed under the GPL v2+ with the exception of the Manual which is under the GFDL v1.2+ and any file explicitly licensed otherwise. Something along the lines of what is in the autoconf README. So all files would then be implicitly under the GPL v2+ which don't have any license wording. C) Add the GNU All-Permissive License to the top of testbuild.sh. D) Anything you feel strongly about you can pick and add either the GPL v2+ text or the GNU All-Permissive License to. If that's OK I'll update the existing patch to do (C) and add a patch to do (B). Thanks, Mike
Hi Mike, No worries on this languishing for a while. We all need to balance our time across work, family, friends, hobbies, and such. :-) > If that's OK I'll update the existing patch to do (C) and add a patch > to do (B). I agree with your careful analysis. Please do proceed with this suggestion. Curtis
Created attachment 245276 [details] [review] Add testbuild.sh (v3) Hi Curtis, Here's the patch set with: (C) testbuild.sh licensed under the GNU All-Permissive License, and (B) Updated README explicitly stating the use of GPLv2+ and GFDLv1.2+. Thanks, Mike
The patch in comment #7 has been committed to the git repository. This patch is focused towards developers, and does not change the way GParted works. The relevant git commits can be viewed at the following links: Add testbuild.sh script (#699881) https://git.gnome.org/browse/gparted/commit/?id=70eda277331b0a15e7c42849b6537bd64d7cbe0b Update licensing statement in the README file https://git.gnome.org/browse/gparted/commit/?id=7d6adee516636e672b278163c85754bd2b942489
Created attachment 245409 [details] [review] Add missing licenses for script files autogen.sh and gparted.in Hi Mike, I hope you don't mind but since we were cleaning up licenses in GParted, I thought it would be good to clarify the license in the script files autogen.sh and gparted.in. Would you please review this patch set? Thanks, Curtis
Hi Curtis, I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Mike
Hi Curtis, For autogen.sh I'm not sure we should be assuming the GNU All-Permissive License on Bart's behalf. However you seem to have re-written most of it so as a co-copyright holder I guess you have the right. Shall I update autogen.sh thus? Copyright (C) 2004 Bart 'plors' Hakvoort Copyright (C) 2008 Curtis Gedak Separate question. Is it OK if I tag all the old releases? 1) Move tag GPARTED_0_8_1 to the right place. 2) Add tags GPARTED_0_3_6 and GPARTED_0_3_5 for your early releases. 3) Add tags V0_3_4 to V0_0_5 for Bart's even earlier releases. Thanks, Mike
Hi Mike, (In reply to comment #11) > For autogen.sh I'm not sure we should be assuming the GNU All-Permissive > License on Bart's behalf. However you seem to have re-written most of > it so as a co-copyright holder I guess you have the right. Shall I > update autogen.sh thus? > Copyright (C) 2004 Bart 'plors' Hakvoort > Copyright (C) 2008 Curtis Gedak Sure, I would be okay with that. > Separate question. Is it OK if I tag all the old releases? > 1) Move tag GPARTED_0_8_1 to the right place. The current GPARTED_0_8_1 tag matches the tarball that was released. If the tag is moved, then the tag will no longer represent the actual release. I do not think this tag should be moved, even if the NEWS file was fixed after the release. I try to only place the tags on the actual set of files released in the tarball. > 2) Add tags GPARTED_0_3_6 and GPARTED_0_3_5 for your early releases. Unfortunately the tags can never match the actual tarballs released because I did not have write access to the GNOME repository at that time. The code was tracked in SF SVN, however language translation updates were still being made in parallel in GNOME SVN. For SF SVN see: http://sourceforge.net/p/gparted/svn/HEAD/tree/ This is the reason why I never added the tags to these releases. I do not think we should add these tags because they can never represent the files in the official released tarball. For a bit of background, GParted source code repository history looks something like this: 2004 2007 2008 NOW GNOME CVS --> GNOME SVN --+--> GNOME SVN --+--> GNOME GIT | | +--> SF SVN -->--+ I know it's not a clean history, but it does reflect the actual steps that occurred when I joined Laurent de Trogoff on the project. The history of the Live CD is also non-linear. > 3) Add tags V0_3_4 to V0_0_5 for Bart's even earlier releases. At one time I had thought this would be worthwhile. If this were to be undertaken, I think that the files in the repository would need to be verified to be the exact same files in the tarball. Otherwise the tag would be a misrepresentation of history. However, now I think that there is little to gain by such an expenditure of effort (recreating history that is). If you have a compelling reason to do this then I could be swayed. Curtis
Hi Curtis, Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't have any compelling reason to tag the history. Just when researching the code history for bug 701075 I saw lots of early releases without tags. I'll just leave it alone. Patch set from comment #9 with small copyright change agreed in comment #12 has been pushed up stream. The git commits are: Add GNU All-Permissive License to autogen.sh https://git.gnome.org/browse/gparted/commit/?id=ce8a34715a2f50333d36a0224bc9afe9737caeba Remove GNOME SVN from message text https://git.gnome.org/browse/gparted/commit/?id=50d2ac80279a76ecf6d630e0de7184ca9d54af9a Add GPLv2+ license to gparted.in script source file https://git.gnome.org/browse/gparted/commit/?id=e66a6525f2c9ddcfb3e85365b7674aadcee0f81c Mike
The patches to address this report have been included in GParted 0.16.2 released on September 18, 2013.