prance
prance copied to clipboard
RonnyPfannschmidt
initial new ownership tasks
- [x] place into a organisation
- [x] contact jazzband: https://github.com/jazzband-roadies/help/issues/215
- [x] considerations from insights (where @Glutexo and me primarily use it)
- [x] openapi tools?
- [x] figure what exactly the license means for the file headers (i'd like to remove the dunder items in each file if permissible) cc @jfinkhaeuser
- [x] update docs/templates to the owner change
- [ ] invite co-maintainers from snok CC @snok
- [x] set up pypi credentials for maintainers and set up release automation
followup to #91
I have no objections to any changes you want to make. Of course I have preferences, but I gave up the privilege of enforcing them when transferring the project :)
One of my preferences has been to avoid a CLA (bot) or similar, and take contributions on a gentleperson's understanding that nobody will ever do anything horrible with them. Hence I went with simple copyright/license notices in file headers.
With regards to licenses, IANAL, but I keep being told that any file without a license or license mention is effectively unlicensed, so would fall under copyright of the authors. I'd leave that __license__ thing in every file, if it was up to me.
I also have a bunch of additional/modified items:
- [x] remove funding links to jfinkhaeuser
- [x] pypi transfer is apparently difficult; the
.travis.ymlcontains encrypted credentials. We can leave them there for the time being, but moving to other credentials would be sensible. - [ ] update the openapi website to reflect the new git repo link
- [ ] buy you new maintainers a beer at the next fosdem beer event we can attend in person ;)
- [x] ensure github.io website either works or is (re-)moved
@jfinkhaeuser i believe all that's needed for pypi is adding me as a owner, then i can create a new token (as the encryption is invalid for the new location anyway)
thanks for the extra items :+1:
there will be no CLA, licensing will stay MIT, i'll crosscheck the meaning of the HEADER again to be sure (laws are hell)
@jfinkhaeuser do you remember what the secret here is for ?
https://github.com/RonnyPfannschmidt/prance/blob/773e87fefe040c88eb0279b0db1cd2a1bbdb78cd/.travis.yml#L47-L49
@jfinkhaeuser do you remember what the secret here is for ?
https://github.com/RonnyPfannschmidt/prance/blob/773e87fefe040c88eb0279b0db1cd2a1bbdb78cd/.travis.yml#L47-L49
Nope... sorry. That is actually kind of weird to see there.
there will be no CLA, licensing will stay MIT, i'll crosscheck the meaning of the HEADER again to be sure (laws are hell)
For the record, the license isn't MIT at the moment but MITNFA (MIT +no-false-attribs License), which isn't OSI approved. Some background: https://github.com/Level/packager/issues/1
@jezdez thanks for the ref, that one is a bit of a headache
@jfinkhaeuser is there anything preventing going with a OSI approved variant lie MIT or Artistic?
@RonnyPfannschmidt Artistic 2.0 is fine with me. GPLv3 is fine with me, too, but may not be with others :)
If you want I can create a PR for the license change so you can have my signature on that :)
@jezdez i believe Artistic 2.0 is fine for jazzband?
@jfinkhaeuser once we agreed on the final license that would be most appreciated :+1:
@jezdez i believe Artistic 2.0 is fine for jazzband?
Well, MITNFA is "fine" as well, but if you want to increase the likelyhood that the library is going to be maintained in the future, I would suggest to use an OSI approved license.
short followup from openapi tools, a mail to [email protected] with detail would be required to start the process it should included maintenance plans and details required from the openapi tools team i think for now i'll focus on jazzband
personally im currently solving something else with time pressure, i plan to get back to prance right after that resolves
@jezdez did i understand you correct that, current license would be fine but osi approved like Artistic2/plain MIT wouldbe much better - does jazzband have any preference, or is whatever @jfinkhaeuser likes of those acceptable
Technically, it's your project now, and I do not need to give approval. But I appreciate the gesture!
@jezdez did i understand you correct that, current license would be fine but osi approved like Artistic2/plain MIT wouldbe much better - does jazzband have any preference, or is whatever @jfinkhaeuser likes of those acceptable
Sorry, I described the license as "fine" in quotes above, indicating that it's not fine. Let me ellaborate.
Jazzband exists to make long-term maintenance easier. Choosing a non-OSI license (read: not "Open Source") decreases the chance for use in real world projects where license compatibility matters. Which in effect reduces the chance that someone wants to maintain the project in the future. As such I would strongly recommend to switch to an OSI-approved license to remove this risk, such as the regular MIT license.
@jezdez thanks for elaborating
@jfinkhaeuser i'd like to go MIT then
@jezdez @jfinkhaeuser @Goldziher just a status update from my side
i have been very occupied for corona related personal life mitigation (vaccine related childcare downtimes) and work delivery targets
i'll pick this up hopefully by the end of this week, but latest by the end of next week i'm then going to set up the license change and prepare for moving to jazzband
update docs/templates to the owner change
should include the new issue template.
@jfinkhaeuser i think i finished most of the replacement tasks as well as the MIT Replacement now
i plan to push a first release today, then iterate
i started to use readthedocs for the docs building i added pre-commit and will take a look at black in near future
i plan to add validation and refactoring tools for openapi specs soon-ish
Not to raise a zombie here, but MITNFA has a SPDX identifier (MITNFA), so is a very well documented open source license.
https://spdx.org/licenses/MITNFA.html