XSF Discussion - 2023-01-20

Would it be doable / desirable to somehow annotate all html served from https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/ with a warning that an archived version is looked at?

Yes

It would be desirable, that is :)

I thought we did that. Hrm.

Ah, no, I'm thinking of protoxeps.

I wonder if we can get the webserver to add something on the fly to the content of those files

Assuming it's undesirable to modify each file that is being archived.

related (a bit more work), it may also be good to link to the newer version

pep. indeed, I was working up to that, but didn't dare to over-ask :)

nginx has substitution ability, but it'd honestly be far far easier to just inject it with sed or something

Let me start by creating an issue in github...

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/1266

Hey Kev, I wanted to hear your opinion on the current set of projects https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Google_Summer_of_Code_2023#Project_Ideas

That looks a lot healthier than when it was just Dino, doesn't it? :)

Did Ignite decide not to submit any?

Guus ?

Ignite didn't consider submitting anything, afaik.

(no-one told me)

Oh. Someone was supposed to, I forget who.

I'm not sure if flow is interested in doing something for Smack? I don't want to commit personally to mentor someone, which probably makes Openfire a no-go

and I guess we would be the usual suspects?

Ah the non open source one got removed, I meant to reply to that email but forgot

tl;dr he said mariadb wasn't open source but participated, but I looked up their participation the last few years and they were all on GPL libraries

Kev, Guus: I did not hear back from dwd while trying to reach him multiple times

Ah, it was Dave meant to be poking was it.

I have the responbility and talking with a lawyer gave me the impression of rejection besides Kev legit point finally

I don’t think it really needed a lawyer - Google gives a list of allowable licenses, it wasn’t on the list, job done :)

I just dont want to make exclusion simple ✏

in theory the project could switch to be GPL-2 only (if every contributor agrees or there is a CLA), then do GSOC, and then switch back to BSL

s/GPL-2/some gsoc-compatible license/

not saying that they should, though :)

You can't revoke the gpl2 though, so that would accelerate the bsl timetable for that release dramatically heh

ha

singpolyma, why not? If you have all copyright as flow said? That's how relicensing for commercial stuff works no?

I think it should be possible, the point is that a codebase under gpl stays under gpl

I've added a super basic approach that I believe covers the most basic of requirements regarding adding a banner to the attic content - but it needs someone with access to nginx to be applied. See https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/1266 - If someone can come up with a better approach, by all means, do that.

pep.: You can relicense future version to not gpl2 but you can't revoke license on previous version

can't be do some xslt magic so that the transformation is done more directly and not a layer up via the webserver?

singpolyma, it's not revoking, it's dual license

How does attic even work?

singpolyma, sure

flow: right

flow: maybe, but above my paygrade (also, the attic contains HTML, not XML I think). What I suggest is a MVP :)

> pep.: You can relicense future version to not gpl2 but you can't revoke license on previous version I don't really want to try Internet Lawyering, but I don't think the GPL2 has an irrevocable clause, which means you're at the mercy of local law whether it can be revoked, and those vary.

Zash, I think it's just flat files being served as HTML?

anyway I got to run

good night!

Night, Guus, thanks.

Kev: yes yes, nothing is true until a judge says it's true, but the license says it and lawyers mostly respect that so far