openSUSE packagers' take on the 3 month release cycle

[Àlex Fiestas]

On Tuesday 09 July 2013 14:54:38 Harald Sitter wrote:
> yes, not releated to schedules directly. the problem however is more
> social than anything. people mostly don't care enough. like not adding
> a fully copy of the GPL.
> 
> if you buy some router running Linux you will get with it a printed
> copy of the GPL. if you download randomsoftware-1.0.tar.gz which is
> entirely GPL you have a good chance of not finding a full copy
> anywhere.
> 
> git hooks certainly would improve the situation. but at the same time
> it will not solve the underlying issue, so I am reasonable certain
> that some people's approach to a failed audit on licensing will be to
> simply replace whatever license was rejected with one that will not
> get rejected even if doing so actually violates the original license.
> 
> but as mentioned, the 90% that are easily parsed because they use
> standard license formatting etc are not really the problem (short of
> forgetting to include a GPL copy) it's the other 10% of random source
> copies or whatever.
> 
> oh and on that note... an audit on full-license-copy-present actually
> would be nice, so it is harder to forget adding the full license copy
> ;)
> 
> HS
Can we make a list of things we could do to improve the situation?

Having cycles of 3 months (meaning less new/removed/added/ files) plus 
improving this situation should be enough for having a comparable scenario to 
the one we have now, no?