Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Noah Slater <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Is the reason that you feel most licenses require preservation of the
>> copyright notice and it's easier to enforce it uniformly for all
>> copyright files? Is there some other larger reason why is this
>> important for the project? (Please note that I'm not assuming that you
>> have no reason. I just don't understand, from the discussion so far,
>> what it is. We can't really have a meaningful discussion until we're
>> all on the same page)
> Like I have said a few times previously, it serves as documentation that
> the package has been thoroughly checked for licensing issues. Because
> such a check must involve looking at the headers of each file, and any
> AUTHORS or similar file, there appears to be no reason why this should
> not be written down.
> It also provides a nice summary for our users.
NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bugs.
Also, I *truly* don't want to shut you down here, but I would specifically
like to know why ftpmaster wants this information. We're discussing a
policy set by ftpmaster for specific reasons. In that context, the views
of people who are not on the ftpmaster team or who weren't involved in
setting that policy, while important, don't help us understand what the
reasons were for the original policy.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>