[Geany-devel] Geany-Plugins: Having just one copy of GPL inside source tree / Waf size

[Frank Lanitz]

Hey, 

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:47:26 +0200
Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:14:54 +0100, Nick wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:49:36 +0200
> >Frank Lanitz <frank at frank.uvena.de> wrote:
> >
> >> during the work on Updatecheker I recognized another time that
> >> nearly every plugin is having its own copy of GPL. As most of the
> >> plugins code is licensed under GPL2+, what do you think of moving
> >> the individual copies of GPL into a central, geany-plugins-License
> >> as
> 
> Then you would have to maintain a list of the plugins with the
> licenses they use.

Not sure. I think when using GPL only (and from my understanding all
plugins are currently inside geany-plugins) are currently maintained
and distributed under terms of GPL2+ so a list wouldn't be needed.
Nevertheless I understand you concerns behind and agree that if might
not yet, but maybe in future the overhead on during some license stuff
will significant increase when establishing something like that. 

> >If the GPL copies are virtually the same I guess they won't take
> >space when they're compressed.
> 
> I agree.
> First of all, all the license files are plain ASCII text which can be
> really good compressed. And as Nick said, since those files are the
> same, the compression ratio should be even higher.
> Additionally, compared to the rest of all the contents, the license
> files might not be the biggest factor.

I've got the feeling that I cannot agree for 100% here as most of
compression tools are working with fixed value bitstreams IIRC. But
nevertheless, in genreal you are right, so we should keep it as it is. 

> >Also what if an author wanted to distribute their plugin separately?
> 
> Also agree.

Basically this I don't see as a valid argument, as if a developer is
really planning to do so he will need to build up its own build system.
Adding a copy of GPL will be the simplest task during this. 

However, based on the points I think maybe its really better to keep it
as it is. 

 Cheers, 
Frank 
-- 
http://frank.uvena.de/en/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100825/051105ba/attachment.pgp>