| Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 11-10-2008 11:53 PST |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs |
| Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ View Advanced ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||
| ID | Category | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||
| 0002704 | [BusyBox] Documentation | minor | always | 03-26-08 08:14 | 05-16-08 18:26 | ||||
| Reporter | thijs | View Status | public | ||||||
| Assigned To | BusyBox | ||||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | fixed | ||||||
| Status | closed | Product Version | svn | ||||||
| Summary | 0002704: 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! |
||||||||
| Additional Information | |||||||||
| Attached Files |
 2704.patch [^] (539 bytes) 03-26-08 08:51 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
 Relationships |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
(0006034) 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 :) |
|
(0006044) 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? |
|
(0006054) 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. |
|
(0006164) 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. |
|
(0006184) 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... |
|
(0006194) 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. |
|
(0006244) vda 03-29-08 09:30 |
You are right. It took me something like 30 minutes. |
|
(0007674) thijs 05-14-08 08:20 |
Thanks for doing this. Do you think the RFC can be removed now? |
|
(0007714) vda 05-15-08 17:53 |
Do you agree that the following is a truthful description of the events around this bug: You want RFC text removed from busybox source because you think it is not allowed by RFC's copyright. But you did nothing to make it happen. You refused to spend Note: 0000030 minutes of your time. Someone else had to do it for you. |
|
(0007724) thijs 05-16-08 00:50 |
Yes. Of course I would put it like this: when working on other open source projects I haven't found the time *yet*, and am very thankful that someone else did so we can move on. But the essence remains the same, someone else had to do it for me which I appreciate and am thankful for. |
|
(0007744) vda 05-16-08 18:26 |
Fixed in rev 21994, will be in 1.11.0 release. |
|
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 | |
| 05-15-08 17:53 | vda | Note Added: 0007714 | |
| 05-16-08 00:50 | thijs | Note Added: 0007724 | |
| 05-16-08 18:26 | vda | Status | assigned => closed |
| 05-16-08 18:26 | vda | Note Added: 0007744 | |
| 05-16-08 18:26 | vda | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Copyright © 2000 - 2006 Mantis Group |  |
