Re: versioning macros

[Bastiaan Veelo]

Peter Simons wrote:

> Bastiaan Veelo writes:
>
> >> I am torn about the copyright notice. Repeating the GPL
> >> synopsis AND the GPL-exception in every single file feels
> >> weird. That is a LOT of redundancy, especially given the
> >> fact that under the given URL you will find all the
> >> information you'd ever want.
>
> > I don't need the complete license text embedded in the
> > macro, but a short notice of who owns the copyright and
> > where to find the license text is a minimum.
>
> There is one: every macro contains the URL of its
> corresponding web page and this page has _all_ this
> information readily available. What is the benefit of
> repeating that information explicitly in a file that's meant
> to be machine-processed?
>  

A macro file can outlive the validity of a URL. And isn't any source 
code meant to be machine processed? But there is no need to discuss 
this, because as has been pointed out before:

" Every nontrivial file needs a license notice as well as the copyright 
notice. (Without a license notice giving permission to copy and change 
the file would make the file non-free.)" 
(http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html#License-Notices)

> > Because macro's can be downloaded at the click of a
> > button without being packaged or anything, and because
> > they then become part of X different project trees with
> > all their own copyright holders and possibly different
> > licenses, this information needs to follow the macro.
>
> The URL is still there, so all the information you want is
> just one mouse click away. So are newer versions, other
> macros, etc. It's not like that information would be "lost".
>  

See above.

> >> Why do want this all redundancy? What's wrong about an
> >> URL?
>
> > Not everybody is online all the time.
>
> The files are also included in the distribution -- including
> the license. You don't need to be online to access that.
>  

If you download the tarball, yes. But people that are worried about 
bloat just download a single macro (like I do), not all of them and all 
of their documentation.

> > sf.net still distributes the pristine sources, and I
> > think it should be that way.
>
> gnu.org _does_ distribute the pristine sources:

I meant "release", not "distribute". The tarbaal that is.

> > That would be fine if there is only one repository, and
> > files are not committed to other repositories without the
> > -ko flag. But I have my macro in my own development tree,
> > and there may be many commits there before it is ready
> > for release.
>
> How about adding -ko to the macro in gnu.org's CVS
> repository? Then you could use CVS $Id$ (or whatever) to
> denote the version and it would come from _your_ repository?

That could work, for the moment. But what if I orphan the macro, or I 
get a co-maintainer...

Regards,
Bastiaan.