From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Guthro Subject: Re: RFC: removing figlet source from Xen Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:31:15 -0400 Message-ID: <480CCF63.5010607@virtualiron.com> References: <20080416210104.GM1444@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080416210104.GM1444@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Alternately - a clone could be used: http://freshmeat.net/projects/toilet/ http://libcaca.zoy.org/toilet.html (LGPL) Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > The Xen source tree currently contains a copy of the figlet sources. During > the hypervisor build it builds figlet and uses it to generate the big ascii > art 'Xen 3.1.0' version string shown upon boot. > > The problem is that the figlet code is licensed under the original Artistic > 1.0 license, and not the clarified version. The original non-clarified > license is classed as non-free by Debian and on the forbidden list for > Fedora too: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43fb6a5d624ae1 > > So, the figlet source code in Xen has to be removed if we're to continue > shipping Xen in Fedora. While I could re-spin the source tar.gz files myself > before importing them to Fedora, it'd be preferrable if the official Xen > source code tar.gz were shipped without figlet in the first place. > > I'm happy to send a patch to clean this up - just wondering which option > would be preferred... > > - Remove figlet entirely and just have a normal size "Xen 3.1.0" string > printed at boot > - Include the pre-generated large ascii art "Xen" and have normal size > "3.1.0" version stirng. > - Optionally call out to a plain figlet binary in $PATH, using a normal > size version string if not found. > > Personally I'd just go for option 1 or 2 since they're least effort... > > Dan. >