XSF Discussion - 2022-10-12

emus: that's quite a rabbit hole, many projects are under multiple licenses or custom licenses etc

moparisthebest: but was for the xsf discussion right?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reitzenstein-kitten-opaque/

to quote the ID's author: "This mechanism offers much of the same advantages of SCRAM, but OPAQUE additionally specifies a method to register without exposing the clear-text password of an user to the server, and provides a client with a long-term secret, that can be used as e.g. an encryption key, without needing any further key exchange between multiple clients of the same user."

fwiw, I've just send a mail to board@, not sure if it got through or if someone needs to moderate it first ✏

flow, about the PR? It's already approved, right?

The PR, not your message, I mean

MattJ, approved by ralphm, not sure if this means if it is approved by board

but if it does, or if the approval of one board member is enough, then I am happy if this would be merged

No, just my voice is not the voice of the Board. However, MattJ is ED and Board member, so if he's ok, too, please go ahead

MattJ, would you do the honors and merge the PR? :)

Done

For the record I am also of the opinion that this data is a factual listing, and not subject to copyright. But an explicit statement of CC0 is fine by me (whether it is valid or not)

factual listings can be covered by copyright-adjacent rights in some territories

Disclaimable by CC0?

IANAL TINLA

yes ;)

jonas’, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1221#issuecomment-1276484442

anyone an idea where the Dockerfile lives that is used to build the XEPs?

I wonder why the sources are copied anyways, and not simply "make -C xeps <targets> OUTDIR=/foo"