On Tuesday 09 July 2013 14:54:38 Harald Sitter wrote: > yes, not releated to schedules directly. the problem however is more > social than anything. people mostly don't care enough. like not adding > a fully copy of the GPL. > > if you buy some router running Linux you will get with it a printed > copy of the GPL. if you download randomsoftware-1.0.tar.gz which is > entirely GPL you have a good chance of not finding a full copy > anywhere. > > git hooks certainly would improve the situation. but at the same time > it will not solve the underlying issue, so I am reasonable certain > that some people's approach to a failed audit on licensing will be to > simply replace whatever license was rejected with one that will not > get rejected even if doing so actually violates the original license. > > but as mentioned, the 90% that are easily parsed because they use > standard license formatting etc are not really the problem (short of > forgetting to include a GPL copy) it's the other 10% of random source > copies or whatever. > > oh and on that note... an audit on full-license-copy-present actually > would be nice, so it is harder to forget adding the full license copy > ;) > > HS Can we make a list of things we could do to improve the situation?
Having cycles of 3 months (meaning less new/removed/added/ files) plus improving this situation should be enough for having a comparable scenario to the one we have now, no?
