taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #15760, Submission of WebSTUMP

 
 

task #15760: Submission of WebSTUMP

Submitted by:  Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Submitted on:  Mon 24 Aug 2020 09:51:13 AM UTC  
 
Should Start On:  Mon 24 Aug 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Thu 03 Sep 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Done Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  0% Assigned to:  Ineiev <ineiev>
Open/Closed:  Closed Effort:  0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

( Jump to the original submission)

Mon 26 Oct 2020 09:03:00 AM UTC, comment #9: 

Thank you, approving.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 23 Oct 2020 07:58:06 PM UTC, comment #8: 

comment #7:

> comment #6:
> > Yes, the articles are largely hand-written.  So if users see exactly the same boilerplate text in every newsgroup article, they are liable to think that that part of the article has not been hand-written but rather automatically inserted by the software.
>
> Copyright of the code generally doesn't cover the output of the program, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL, so this would be wrong


And this is exactly why we don't want our users to think that the software is adding these notices.

> If the confusion be a real problem, it can be addressed with a note in the documentation or next to the notices in the files themselves.


This is an inelegant solution. Fortunately, I have just discovered that the files in the queues folder are generated from the original articles in the tmp folder, so I have simply removed the files in the queues folder (since generated files don't belong under version control) and added the copyright and licence notice to the files in the tmp folder.  A new tarball is attached.

Are there any outstanding issues that need to be addressed?

(file #50076)

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Fri 23 Oct 2020 07:10:12 AM UTC, comment #7: 

comment #6:

> >
> > I don't think I understand this.  Copyright and license notices are not written by software, and some parts of the files in question are hand-written; why people are likely to think that the notices are added automatically?
>
> Yes, the articles are largely hand-written.  So if users see exactly the same boilerplate text in every newsgroup article, they are liable to think that that part of the article has not been hand-written but rather automatically inserted by the software.


Copyright of the code generally doesn't cover the output of the program, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL, so this would be wrong; on the other hand, if the developers know that certain notices shall apply to some particular generated files (e.g. articles in the tarball), it's OK for those files to have the respective notices automatically added, like in the output of the GNU standard option --version.

If the confusion be a real problem, it can be addressed with a note in the documentation or next to the notices in the files themselves.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 22 Oct 2020 12:30:52 PM UTC, comment #6: 

comment #5:

> comment #4:
> > 1. The files in the queues/ and tmp/ directories are example newsgroup articles which users manipulate as part of a simulated moderation scenario. Such articles don't normally contain copyright and licence notices and so adding them (even as custom headers) could be confusing to users, who might mistakenly believe that the software inserts such messages into all its output, even in real-world scenarios.
>
> I don't think I understand this.  Copyright and license notices are not written by software, and some parts of the files in question are hand-written; why people are likely to think that the notices are added automatically?


Yes, the articles are largely hand-written.  So if users see exactly the same boilerplate text in every newsgroup article, they are liable to think that that part of the article has not been hand-written but rather automatically inserted by the software.

> > 2. The files in config/ are configuration files, and the scripts that read them do not have any provision for processing comments (behind which we would need to hide the copyright/licence notices).
>
> As far as I can see, all copyrightable files in this directory do have notices


Good, so there is nothing more to do with those files for the time being.

> if there are some scripts that don't allow comments in those files, I think you should modify them to allow comments


Sure, this is one of a number of things we are already planning to do once this package has the benefit of Savannah's source control and issue tracking infrastructure.

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Thu 22 Oct 2020 11:52:46 AM UTC, comment #5: 

comment #4:

> After reviewing the code in a bit more detail, I think you are right about the files in the demo and doc directories, which (despite the incomplete HTML) are standalone web pages, and so I have updated them accordingly.


Thank you!

> But I think it would be impractical, or at least very awkward, to put inline notices in the other files for the following reasons:
>
> 1. The files in the queues/ and tmp/ directories are example newsgroup articles which users manipulate as part of a simulated moderation scenario. Such articles don't normally contain copyright and licence notices and so adding them (even as custom headers) could be confusing to users, who might mistakenly believe that the software inserts such messages into all its output, even in real-world scenarios.


I don't think I understand this.  Copyright and license notices are not written by software, and some parts of the files in question are hand-written; why people are likely to think that the notices are added automatically?

> 2. The files in config/ are configuration files, and the scripts that read them do not have any provision for processing comments (behind which we would need to hide the copyright/licence notices).


As far as I can see, all copyrightable files in this directory do have notices; if there are some scripts that don't allow comments in those files, I think you should modify them to allow comments (they would also be useful for other purposes) or (e.g. if they are third-party) pre-process your files before feeding them to those scripts.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 20 Oct 2020 01:17:48 PM UTC, comment #4: 

comment #3:

> But then many of the files themselves can embed the notices quite easily, like queues/demo.newsgroup/dir_927745214_12598/HAPPY99.EXE or demo/review.html. I think it isn't more impractical than putting the notices to parts of programs; do I miss anything?


After reviewing the code in a bit more detail, I think you are right about the files in the demo and doc directories, which (despite the incomplete HTML) are standalone web pages, and so I have updated them accordingly.  But I think it would be impractical, or at least very awkward, to put inline notices in the other files for the following reasons:

1. The files in the queues/ and tmp/ directories are example newsgroup articles which users manipulate as part of a simulated moderation scenario. Such articles don't normally contain copyright and licence notices and so adding them (even as custom headers) could be confusing to users, who might mistakenly believe that the software inserts such messages into all its output, even in real-world scenarios.

2. The files in config/ are configuration files, and the scripts that read them do not have any provision for processing comments (behind which we would need to hide the copyright/licence notices).

Also, keep in mind that my fellow maintainers and I have just taken over this very old package, which has not been actively developed in over 20 years, which has never conformed to the guidelines for GNU packages, and which is written in such a way that bringing it into compliance will be (and indeed already has been) a great effort.  At this time we want to do the absolute minimum work required in order to get the package into a state where it can be hosted by Savannah, in order that we can start to collaboratively fix all the compliance issues (and bugs, and compatibility issues, and outdated/questionable coding practices, etc.) with the benefit of the Savannah infrastructure.  If this means using a permissible but suboptimal way of recording copyright and licence notices, so be it.  We don't want to spend a lot of time getting everything done absolutely perfectly when the code, documentation, and associated files are going to get massively refactored in the very near future.

(file #50027)

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Tue 20 Oct 2020 09:53:09 AM UTC, comment #3: 

Thank you!

> (Not every directory contains its own README file as AFAIK the software treats these directories as Usenet article spools, etc., and the presence of a non-article file would confuse the software.)


But then many of the files themselves can embed the notices quite easily, like queues/demo.newsgroup/dir_927745214_12598/HAPPY99.EXE or demo/review.html. I think it isn't more impractical than putting the notices to parts of programs; do I miss anything?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 06 Oct 2020 02:28:41 PM UTC, comment #2: 

Attached is a revised tarball that includes a plain-text copy of the CC BY licence, and whose README and images/README files give a copyright and licence notice for all files in the package where it is impractical to embed the notice in the file.  (Not every directory contains its own README file as AFAIK the software treats these directories as Usenet article spools, etc., and the presence of a non-article file would confuse the software.)

(file #49927)

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Thu 24 Sep 2020 10:09:10 AM UTC, comment #1: 

I have added some further copyright and licence notices for files that were missing them. Attached is a revised tarball.

(file #49859)

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>
Mon 24 Aug 2020 09:51:13 AM UTC, original submission:  

A new project has been registered at Savannah
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.

Registration Administration

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific Group Administration page, accessible only to site administrators,
effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

Registration Details

  • Name: WebSTUMP
  • System Name:  webstump
  • Type: Official GNU software
  • License: GNU General Public License v3 or later

Description:

WebSTUMP is a user interface for STUMP, the Secure Team-based Usenet Moderation Program.. It gives moderators an easy and universally accessible Web interface through which they can moderate newsgroups. Use of WebSTUMP requires no computer skills beyond knowing how to operate a Web browser.

Other Software Required:

WebSTUMP requires a C compiler to build, and the following software to run:

Other Comments:

I and the two other members of the Big-8 Management Board (Jason Evans, whose Savannah username is jsevans, and Rayner Lucas, whose Savannah username is rayner) have just been appointed by the GNU project as official maintainers of STUMP and WebSTUMP.  We are taking over from the original author, Igor Chudov.  STUMP and WebSTUMP have been GNU packages since 9 November 1998 but until now have been hosted on Mr. Chudov's personal website.  While the packages as handed over to us by Mr. Chudov do not currently follow the rules and guidelines for GNU packages, we will bring them into compliance as a matter of priority, and ask that they be accepted on Savannah now so that we can do this cleanup work with the benefit of Savannah's source control and issue tracking facilities.  (So far the only cleanup work we have done is to add copyright and licence headers to all applicable files.)

Tarball URL:

https://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/WebSTUMP.tar.gz

Tristan Miller <psychonaut>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #50076:  WebSTUMP.tar.gz added by psychonaut (116KiB - application/gzip)
file #50027:  WebSTUMP.tar.gz added by psychonaut (236KiB - application/gzip)
file #49927:  WebSTUMP.tar.gz added by psychonaut (235KiB - application/gzip)
file #49859:  WebSTUMP.tar.gz added by psychonaut (228KiB - application/gzip)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by ineiev (Updated the item)
  • -email is unavailable- added by psychonaut (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

     

     

    Follow 8 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2020-10-26 ineiev StatusIn Progress => Done
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2020-10-23 psychonaut Attached File- => Added WebSTUMP.tar.gz, #50076
    2020-10-20 psychonaut Attached File- => Added WebSTUMP.tar.gz, #50027
    2020-10-08 ineiev StatusNone => In Progress
        Assigned toNone => ineiev
    2020-10-06 psychonaut Attached File- => Added WebSTUMP.tar.gz, #49927
    2020-09-24 psychonaut Attached File- => Added WebSTUMP.tar.gz, #49859

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.5