[Fedora-packaging] I wish to package some CC licensed content ...
Patrice Dumas
pertusus at free.fr
Fri Feb 20 21:57:23 UTC 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:21:23AM -0600, steve at lonetwin.net wrote:
>
> a. Naming pacakges is going to be tough, because books have long titles,
> such as cory doctorow's, do acronyms make sense ?
This is not an easy issue, because, contrary to software there is no
convenient name that upstream choosed. So the packager is left
with too much choice and contradictory objectives.
* short names are better
* content needs to be disambiguated from software and other content with
different medium and same title
* the name should allow to find which content it is as best as possible
Other issues arise, what about different languages, different formats?
> b. Version numbers do not make sense for content that is not versioned
If the author has a versionning scheme that looks ascii ascending lets
use it. Otherwise I think that the following would work
Version: 0
Release: 0.X.YYYYMMDD
with YYYY year, MM month and DD day (I'd do the same for a software
without version, and it is indeed what I used for uread) for the document
date of publishing, or of access if publishing date is not known.
> c. How does one treat remixes (ie: content that has been modified and
> re-released by someone else). This is going to be different than
> software, because, the ^upstream^ are more likely to *prefer* the forks
> (so to say) to live side-by-side with the originals than discourage it.
Not an issue here, and it is the same than with forks that are both
interesting (like xemacs and emacs).
> d. Is it acceptable to distribute content like this:
> http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options
>
> where although the content is licensed under a share-alike license[1],
> the actual way to get the content is to provide an email where a
> 'one-time download' link would be sent. So, that implies, we get around
> the spirit under which the content is being shared (assuming the sole
> intention of this policy was to track downloads).
Not an issue. At least ncarg (or ncl) was like this and is in fedora.
I think that the NonCommercial clause makes it not suitable for a
fedora content repo, however. (not modifiable would be fine, in my
opinion, but not noin commercial).
> My Todo list was mentioned under the assumption that this is not
> something Fedora would see as a good fit 'within' the distribution
> itself.
>
> I'd be very pleased if my assumption is wrong.
I think that there are books that fit in fedora and not in a separate
repo. For example, the 'maximum rpm book', but also books that
explains how to configure servers, or the svn book
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Also videos closely realted with fedora should in my opinion
be directly in fedora, like videos explaining how to use a given
application.
Books about programming are less obvious candidates to be directly
in fedora, but still good candidates in my opinion.
--
Pat
More information about the Fedora-packaging
mailing list