lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Grant plan
Date Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:57:55 GMT
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:29:58AM +0200, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> > I have also been accumulating a list of people who have made small
> > contributions, which while welcome, may not be significant for the purposes of
> > the grant.  For these individuals, I think we should have them write to
> > lucy-dev indicating whether they agree with that assessment and whether they
> > think they need to participate formally.  This is what I see that mod_fcgid
> > did:
> >
> >
> I really can tell but it seems a good way. I don't really know if
> thats practical at all but would it make sense to let those people
> sign their mails with a GPG key or something like that. I mean faking
> an email address is super easy - I don't think that this has any legal
> weight, does it?

Like I mentioned in the reply to Chris Mattmann, there aren't that many people
who fall into this category.  If we just err on the side of including them in
the grant, we avoid the identity verification issue you've raised.

> > Another task that needs to be completed before the code drop is the excising
> > of materials which cannot be relicensed.  For example, the standalone utility
> > script trunk/devel/bin/dump_index was adapted by Brian Phillips from an
> > original which was published in the Plucene distribution; it will simply not
> > be included in the grant.
> I guess that is fine though - for stuff like that we have enough
> knowledge to rewrite. Being on the safe side gets a +1 from me :)
> Is there more stuff like that which needs to be identified?

There are a few snippets of source code taken from the Perl 5 core and
subsequently hacked (this is quite common for XS modules).  Reviewing the
commit history provides an extra level of audit protection.

Marvin Humphrey

View raw message