Re: Integrating the kmod completions upstream

[Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings Oliver,

Thanks for the prompt reply o/

On Sun, 8 Sept 2024 at 16:58, Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Emil Velikov wrote:
> > Hello team, I'm considering pulling the zsh completion files (as do
> > bash and fish fwiw) in the upstream kmod project.
>
> This seems to correspond to the Linux _modutils function in zsh.
> (I guess modutils must have been renamed to kmod at some point)
> Even if the function stays in zsh, it should be renamed.
>

modutils is the old project which went EOL ~2011 and kmod superseded
it. I don't think it makes much sense to rename at this point.

> > At a glance, a few questions come up:
> > - what is the license of the completion files?
>
> Same as the rest of zsh: a variant of the MIT license.
>

Looking through https://spdx.org/licenses/ - there are a bunch of MIT
variants. Can you let me know which is the correct one?

> > - would the team be comfortable with relicensing under LGPL-2.1-or-later?
>
> The LGPL is a superset of the zsh license so from a legal standpoint
> you can do that. A good portion of the function was written by me and
> I don't mind it being changed to match any OSI licence of an upstream
> project wanting to pull their completions in. An alternative you might
> consider is explicitly dual-licencing the completion file.
>

Right, let me see if upstream kmod is OK with the (to be confirmed)
MIT license. And if needed will get back to you.

> > - are there any copyright holders which I could/should add in the
> > files themselves?
>
> As a minimum, I would suggest acknowledging in the header that it has
> been imported from the zsh project, crediting just "Zsh developers".
> About 15 different people have contributed to that function so naming
> them all might be a bit much. Or you cut that down to a shorter list.
>

Instead of extensive lists, covering decades and dozens of people, I'm
considering adding the following for fish.
What would a zsh equivalent look like - there is no official git repo afaict.

If you can suggest something I can copy/paste that would be great.

```
This file is based on the completion from
https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell, git tag 3.7.1.
See the repository for the original authors and copyright holders.

```

> > - is there a particular process/coordination that you'd suggest?
>
> Not really, just import the function. Have your build system install the
> file to $DESTDIR$PREFIX/share/zsh/site-functions and let us know once it
> reaches a released version of kmod. It's better that there is an overlap
> period when the function is available from both zsh and kmod than a gap
> where users get no completion.
>

Ack will do. As you can see from my other email, upstream dkms was
released with the zsh completion already.

> > In general, would you recommend me going this route, or perhaps it's
> > better to rewrite them from scratch?
>
> Yes, I would recommend that route. In most cases, the upstream project is a
> better home for completions because they can better track changes in the
> upstream project.
>
Indeed that's my train of thought as well.

> There's no point in duplicating the effort with a rewrite. The
> completions included with zsh have the advantage of having been written
> by people who know zsh completion well - if not the kmod project well.
>
On the other hand, since we're not zsh experts, some of the
micro-optimisations might go away.
Apologies in advance if that happens :-)

Thanks for all the help,
Emil