ianmcorvidae: apparently you should support autoconfiguration, you suck :P
2012-10-11 28520, 2012
kurtjx joined the channel
2012-10-11 28543, 2012
nikki
warp: anyway, that's not the issue :P the issue is that it rejects my manual configuration despite it actually being correct
2012-10-11 28500, 2012
warp
it's the maintainer of the @domain.tld part who needs to implement the autoconfiguration.
2012-10-11 28522, 2012
Freso
warp: Which'd be ianmcorvidae :)
2012-10-11 28528, 2012
warp
nikki: yes, but why does it reject that? it could very well be an error by the ISP.
2012-10-11 28544, 2012
nikki
warp: I don't know. it makes no sense to me
2012-10-11 28531, 2012
warp
ocharles: any idea what's up with IO::All::Temp?
2012-10-11 28510, 2012
warp
I get "Can't locate IO/All/Temp.pm in @INC" when running "carton exec -- script/compile_resources.pl", but carton says "You have IO::All::Temp (undef)"
2012-10-11 28534, 2012
Dremora joined the channel
2012-10-11 28514, 2012
ocharles
yea, see the configuration on jenkins
2012-10-11 28526, 2012
ocharles
for some reason you have to set an environment variable (CARTON_HOME iirc) to get that to work
2012-10-11 28550, 2012
warp
ah, fun.
2012-10-11 28533, 2012
Freso
ocharles: MBS-5205 - if you *prepend* something to a title, the first word is still marked as changed in the diff.
ianmcorvidae: when you're around, can you explain what the purpose of the no-op i18n functions are?
2012-10-11 28501, 2012
Freso
warp: No-op i18n functions?
2012-10-11 28533, 2012
warp
N_l, N_ln, N_lp
2012-10-11 28507, 2012
djce joined the channel
2012-10-11 28509, 2012
Freso
warp: If they're what it sounds like to me, the purpose is likely to feed the gettext parser with strings that are being "dynamically" generated and thus wouldn't otherwise be pulled in.
warp: Unless those $AUTOEDITOR ... variables are being called later as _($...). But I don't know. :) I'm curious too, now.
2012-10-11 28553, 2012
Freso
(Of course, not literally _ - but whatever function is made to wrap around that.)
2012-10-11 28513, 2012
djce joined the channel
2012-10-11 28530, 2012
night199uk joined the channel
2012-10-11 28531, 2012
night199uk joined the channel
2012-10-11 28514, 2012
ocharles
warp: it means you can mark a string as translatable once, and then use a variable later (which contains that string)
2012-10-11 28512, 2012
ocharles
ie. we might edit.status_name, which is dynamic and depends on the status in the database. We could either have a switch there and call out many l() calls, or we just N_l somewhere earlier to 'mark' a translation
2012-10-11 28518, 2012
warp
ocharles: clear as mud :)
2012-10-11 28551, 2012
Freso
ocharles: So... basically the same I was trying to say in a more abstract way.
2012-10-11 28511, 2012
ocharles
Freso: me, explaining things in an abstract way?
2012-10-11 28512, 2012
ocharles
:)
2012-10-11 28533, 2012
stefans_ joined the channel
2012-10-11 28513, 2012
Freso
ocharles: Yeah, unlike me who tend to over-abstract my explanations. We'd make a good explanation team. :p
2012-10-11 28516, 2012
murdos
ocharles: +1 for the general markettingy stuff ;)
2012-10-11 28536, 2012
ocharles
i think gnome and stuff have advocay mailing lists, which might be a start
2012-10-11 28528, 2012
murdos
but gnome has a very different community and functioning
2012-10-11 28532, 2012
ocharles
yea
2012-10-11 28518, 2012
murdos
it's not benevol dictator centred, and has its foundation has active contributors on board
2012-10-11 28537, 2012
ocharles
i imagine there are bits we can take that will immediately work for us, and maybe more to consider
2012-10-11 28520, 2012
warp
warp has changed the topic to: chilly week | http://musicbrainz.org/#devel | Meeting: reviews, final GitHub steps (ocharles), (c) picard plugins (warp)
why Freso? it allows scriptish and GM to auto-update scripts
2012-10-11 28531, 2012
Freso
_5moufl: Exactly. =)
2012-10-11 28516, 2012
Freso
warp: Isn't Picard GPL?
2012-10-11 28525, 2012
kurtjx joined the channel
2012-10-11 28531, 2012
warp
Freso: yes. picard itself is licensed under GPLv2 or later.
2012-10-11 28544, 2012
Freso
warp: If so, any plugins made against Picard which wouldn't wihtout Picard, are thus also GPL.
2012-10-11 28505, 2012
warp
Freso: no, not automatically.
2012-10-11 28521, 2012
Freso
warp: Depends on how you read the GPL. :)
2012-10-11 28515, 2012
Freso
warp: There's no clear cut way to say whether or not it is so, so ultimately, it's up to a court to decide if it should come to that.
2012-10-11 28536, 2012
warp
Freso: if we assume those plugins to be derivative works of picard, they SHOULD be licensed under a GPL compatible license, yes.
2012-10-11 28521, 2012
warp
Freso: but if someone doesn't do that, they're simply violating the copyright license of picard. violating that license doesn't automatically license a work under GPL.
2012-10-11 28511, 2012
warp
Only the author of picard plugin can determine the license for that plugin, it doesn't automatically get the GPL license just because it is derivative of picard.
"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case." is probably what is happening here.
2012-10-11 28528, 2012
warp
sure
2012-10-11 28558, 2012
warp
but in the end a copyright license is just a set of permissions the copyright holder grants, and only the copyright holder can grant those.
2012-10-11 28537, 2012
warp
so if I write and publish a picard plugin, only I can determine what those permissions are. only I get to determine the copyright license.
2012-10-11 28502, 2012
Freso
warp: True, but the copyright holders to Picard has licensed Picard under the terms of GPLv2+; these terms include that plugins/modules be available under the same terms (per those two FAQ entries).
2012-10-11 28538, 2012
warp
Freso: yes. So if I write and publish a picard plugin, but don't give you those permissions. then I am violating the picard license, and nothing more.
2012-10-11 28546, 2012
voiceinsideyou joined the channel
2012-10-11 28558, 2012
Freso
IANAL, and I'm guessing you're not either. :)
2012-10-11 28501, 2012
warp
the picard copyright holders can sue me for violating their copyright.
2012-10-11 28559, 2012
warp
I am not a lawyer, no. But I do know how copyright works.
2012-10-11 28509, 2012
Freso
Sure.
2012-10-11 28513, 2012
warp
uk: the vast majority of what is in CAA is not of unknown copyright status.
2012-10-11 28531, 2012
voiceinsideyou joined the channel
2012-10-11 28552, 2012
CallerNo6 joined the channel
2012-10-11 28543, 2012
warp
uk: anything published since 1964 is still under copyright until at least 2019 (in the USA).
2012-10-11 28532, 2012
warp
often the copyright holder is unknown, but not the copyright status.
2012-10-11 28556, 2012
uk
OK, then that's a terminology problem.
2012-10-11 28532, 2012
uk
(Note, however, that the example includes material from pre-1964. :) )
2012-10-11 28503, 2012
uk
Otherwise, it's clear that at least in the rest of the world, anything is copyrighted for at least 70 years.
2012-10-11 28526, 2012
warp
pre 1964 is more difficult. because it required registration to get copyright protection. pre 1928 USA is public domain now.
2012-10-11 28521, 2012
warp
A lot of places still have death of author + 50 years.
2012-10-11 28523, 2012
warp
Freso: sure, so the copyright status is known but the copyright holder isn't.
2012-10-11 28548, 2012
warp
I guess the minimum allowed by berne is death of author + 25 years.
2012-10-11 28510, 2012
uk
Only for photographs, creation (not death-of-photographer) plus 25. Otherwise d-o-a plus 50.
2012-10-11 28501, 2012
Freso
Hm. Speaking of photographs... should we allow ARs to be linked directly to cover art?
2012-10-11 28546, 2012
Freso
This would allow us to be much more specific for ARs such as "wrote liner notes" and "provided photography".
2012-10-11 28503, 2012
warp
uk: according to wikipedia there are a few exceptions. wikipedia could be wrong ofcourse.
