Greetings, all.
On 13 Feb 2012, at 20:23, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> It may also happen that someone fixes a bug in the SOFA source
>> code.
>
> If that happens, we definitely don't want the library to fork at
> that point. It's vital that the bug is reported to SOFA and fixed
> at source. That's not to say that some temporary arrangement can't
> be made to allow whoever is affected to acquire the fixed version
> without delay.
This seems to come down to a question of forking manners.
Consider a random library such as, say, a PDF-generating library. If someone (other than the original author) 'improves' that and puts the result back into Debian or some other distribution without changing the function names, and with or without an indication in the version number, then they have committed a breach of forking etiquette which will cause headaches and bad temper later, but which doesn't really matter -- the resulting library will work better or worse, but any changes will be detectable, and will possibly be improvements. And if they're not it doesn't really matter.
SOFA, and a few things like it, are in a different category. By hypothesis, _no-one_ will be able to improve it other than the SOFA group, and anyone who uses it wants to be reassured that no-one other than the SOFA group have touched the library, and that there are zero 'improvements' by anybody. Changes will not be directly detectable, but will make a difference to results, which might have career-affecting results (why isn't the satellite not where you said it would be?).
That is, everyone wants the 'no fork etiquette' to be very strictly observed, and in this context, a 'do not change names' licence term (which is really a 'do not silently fork' term) is reasonable.
Another thing that's in this category is crypto software. 'Improvements' there will generally be undetectable by almost all users, but might have bad consequences, so again it's in everyone's interest that no-one forks such a library.
So, the point: how do distributions like OpenBSD handle the crypto libraries they include in the distribution? They very much want a no-fork property. Do they simply cross their fingers and hope everyone is well-behaved and knows the etiquette? An understanding of how that process works there might guide the discussion here.
Best wishes,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
|