[BusyBox 0002704]: Please do not ship RFC in source tarball
bugs at busybox.net
bugs at busybox.net
Wed May 14 15:20:19 UTC 2008
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
======================================================================
http://busybox.net/bugs/view.php?id=2704
======================================================================
Reported By: thijs
Assigned To: BusyBox
======================================================================
Project: BusyBox
Issue ID: 2704
Category: Documentation
Reproducibility: always
Severity: minor
Priority: normal
Status: assigned
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 03-26-2008 08:14 PDT
Last Modified: 05-14-2008 08:20 PDT
======================================================================
Summary: Please do not ship RFC in source tarball
Description:
Hi,
Recent releases of busybox ship an RFC in the source tarball:
networking/ftp_ipv6_rfc2428.txt
This is problematic for distributions like Debian that insist that every
and all content in their distribution is free software, and the licence on
RFC's is not free in that sense (regardless of possible good reasons for
that).
Could you please consider to remove the RFC from the released tarballs (or
SVN altogether)? That would help Debian a lot.
thanks!
======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vda - 03-26-08 08:19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to submit a patch which moves RFC text into ftpgetput.c's
comments.
/* TODO: we do not support PASV for IPv6.
...
*/
This comment must be detailed enough so that future TODOer will have no
thouble understanding what needs to be done. Use as many lines as you need
:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thijs - 03-26-08 08:54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your quick response.
Well, one of the reasons that the RFC licence is a problem, is because its
licence does not allow to copy pieces of the RFC into a program source file
as comments, while I agree that this would be desirable.
Therefore I think the best way is to document the omission in the file but
refer to the RFC itself for details. It can be found in countless places
online, so I see no pressing need to include it in the source tarball in
order to enable someone to fix the bug, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vda - 03-26-08 12:55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean - you can paraphrase RFC requirements and put resulting humanly
understandable documentation in the comment.
Until that is not done (or while ftpgetput.c does not fully support
commands documented in RFC) I am not willing to remove RFC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thijs - 03-28-08 04:45
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you explain please why this is so important? Anyone wanting to go
through the work to implement this will have no trouble to just fetch the
RFC they need, why does the text need to be in every busybox distributed
tarball for that?
Keeping the RFC in the source tarball also doesn't match the statement on
the website that busybox is completely GPL.
I'm not trying to be annoying here, just to understand what the added
value would be of adding this RFC and/or a paraphrased version.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vda - 03-28-08 08:40
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Could you explain please why this is so important?
It provides necessary information for people willing to fix ftpgetput.c.
I agree that they can easily find it on Internet, but practice shows that
people are lazy. For example, I know one person which is too lazy to spend
10 minutes making a patch, and wastes his/her time by trolling in bugzilla
instead...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thijs - 03-28-08 09:40
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree people are lazy but those lazy people aren't going to be the
ones spending time to fix that protocol support anyway.
I'd love to provide a patch to you that rewords the entire RFC, but to do
that accurately (if it has mistakes its useless) takes a lot more time
than just 10 minutes I'm afraid... maybe if I'm on a long train ride
sometime I'll consider doing that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vda - 03-29-08 09:30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right. It took me something like 30 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thijs - 05-14-08 08:20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for doing this. Do you think the RFC can be removed now?
Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
03-26-08 08:14 thijs New Issue
03-26-08 08:14 thijs Status new => assigned
03-26-08 08:14 thijs Assigned To => BusyBox
03-26-08 08:19 vda Note Added: 0006034
03-26-08 08:51 thijs File Added: 2704.patch
03-26-08 08:54 thijs Note Added: 0006044
03-26-08 12:55 vda Note Added: 0006054
03-28-08 04:45 thijs Note Added: 0006164
03-28-08 08:40 vda Note Added: 0006184
03-28-08 09:40 thijs Note Added: 0006194
03-29-08 09:30 vda Note Added: 0006244
05-14-08 08:20 thijs Note Added: 0007674
======================================================================
More information about the busybox-cvs
mailing list