Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes:
> After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
> sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
For those who weren't present when you were having that IRC
discussion, can you point us to archived discussions so that we can
see the points raised and discussed?
> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
I find it very surprising that someone can be a Debian developer and
consider copyright of works to be “a very minor issue” in Debian.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted this statement. What do you mean by that?
> It is not easy readables for humans
> It is ugly
Can you point to a proposal (on another page) for an alternate format
that you feel passes these tests?
> Too time consuming to write and check
I find the structure makes it far easier to write and check than the
free-form chaos of many existing files. What would you have removed
from the format to reduce the time for writing and checking it?
> No real gain.
This allows any proposed gains to then be excluded under “not a real
gain”, of course [0]. What gains have you seen proposed, that are not
real gains by your standard? What *would* be a real gain by your
standard?
> Discussions about this is welcome, but I think debian-devel is a
> better forum for that.
Agreed; followup fields set.
[0] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots
--
\ “How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand.” |
`\ —Emo Philips |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: