[RfD] Merging fortune ports

[A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven]

Erich Dollansky wrote:

> this is a good idea.

Lowell Gilbert wrote:
 
> That would be a fine idea,

Thank you both for the feedback.

> as long as it doesn't raise any license problems. We don't actually
> consider or track licenses on any fortune files or ports.  I don't think
> that's a problem at the moment, but it's very difficult to be positive,
> especially with regard to collection copyrights.

That's a good point. However, considering that sites such as Wikiquote
appear to have no legal problems, I think it should be ok as long as we
don't go overboard by quoting entire (chapters of) books, (scenes in)
movies/TV-shows, songs etc. In fact regarding the latter, it appears to be
fine to republish song lyrics as long as they are properly attributed.

And of course we can always install the proper attributions or copyright
notices as part of the port in the form of documentation.

I am by no means a legal expert though, so if anybody cares to weigh in,
then please do.

> To be honest, I was surprised at how *few* fortune files we have in
> ports. I maintain three or four "jars" for my own use, and expected
> that at least *some* people would have shared theirs.

That's another good point. And if we indeed go ahead with this plan, you'd
of course be welcome to contribute your jars if you like :-)

In the meantime, while waiting for more responses, I've outlined what I
think would be a good procedure to follow:

1.
PR ports/184546 (New port: misc/fortune-mod-offensive) can be put on hold
pending this discussion. I'll submit a follow-up as soon as I'm done with
this message.

2.
Specifically email this proposal to everybody who currently maintains a
fortune port. I'll do that ASAP too.

3.
While the discussion is still open, I can forward the comments from the
Forums, if any come forth.

4.
After a certain amount of time the Ports Committee (if there is such a
thing, otherwise anyone with sufficient authority) will have to make a
definite decision.

If the proposal is rejected:

5a.
The aforementioned PR can be committed.

If the proposal is accepted:

5b.
Any licensing issues need to be hashed out (see above).

6b.
The new port can be created (and a PR submitted for that). Perhaps there
could be a period before the first commit where people can submit their
jars for inclusion.

7b.
A web page should be created, which among other things explains how people
can submit jars or corrections/additions. I can do that.

8b.
The current fortune ports should probably be marked DEPRECATED.

9b.
Which in turn I imagine would warrant an entry into /usr/ports/UPDATING.

10b.
If anyone wishes to share maintainership, we'd probably need to set up an
email alias. That should be no problem.

AvW

-- 
I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131221/146dfe8d/attachment.sig>