On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:09:19 Adrien Grellier wrote:
> We are using this way of generating the copyright for a couple of years now.
Which do not validate incorrect of how it was managed copyright or invalid
result of such approach. :(
> The FTP masters may laugh, but they accepts calligra and its copyright.
No, no, no. ftp-masters do not review packages on each upload. I presume some
time ago copyright was better (acceptable) and then semi-automatic update
broke it.
Calligra is merely passed below the radar because nobody checked... :(
> This way of generating the copyright file has been documented, reviewed and
> improved by the Qt-KDE team over the years. Of course it's far from being
> perfect.
It is quite sad to see such low standards. :(
> Then you came and explain it's just rubbish.
I pointed out the obvious and now you are arguing...
> But I didn't find any commit of you on the packaging of calligra before
So what?
> and you propose no improvement,
Not true. I pointed out the problem, explained what should be done, provided
some hints how to do it better and even partially did the work for
"3rdparty/*" files.
> except throwing everything out…
Just invalid "debian/copyright". It is so bad that even you won't miss it...
> Not very kind for us indeed.
I did not intended to be kind. I'm here to help and please don't ignore the
work that I've done because I criticise current state of affairs.
In fact my criticism is entirely valid. If you feel bad about one of the most
inaccurate copyrights in Debian I've ever seen -- that's how it should feel.
Let's just fix it and get over.
> And yes, it is a matter of what we want: If I had the time, calligra will be
> updated long ago. But I can't find the necessary time, like many others
> around. So I choose my combats. And clearly, improving the copyright is not
> my main combat.
Just as I thought you had no time to document licenses, or you were doing it
wrong or you've simply chosen not to do it. We all have our priorities and
hardly anyone would prefer documenting copyrights and licenses over other
work. Perhaps it is a least exciting thing about Debian packaging but it
simply should be done. Even without your explanation it is clear that
"copyright" is in the miserable state because nobody cared enough. Well it
just means that we should care more.
> I think the copyright we have is a good compromise, and
> maybe other like Lisandro or Maximilliano thinks as well.
I is ridiculous that you are arguing so much against the obvious. As you
admitted "copyright" is inaccurate ("rubbish"). And the way it is compiled is
invalid because it produces invalid results. Generated copyright file is
unmanageable and can't be corrected. Therefore rewrite and manage it manually
is a better way and that's the way how copyright documentation is maintained
all over Debian.
> You mention some tricks… But maybe your tricks are just another way to have
> semi-automatic update of the copyright file?
No they are not.
> So now, if you find way to improvement, please share!
You asking me to repeat myself.
> I think the best is to
> document it in the README.source, because this file may stay longer than
> people, and it's much easier for beginners to start with.
Indeed. As very minimum we need to remove instructions for semi-automatic
generation with "licensecheck". I'm still busy but I will be working on
copyright somewhat soon-ish...
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/53968D1B
---
Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if
people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based
on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.
-- Richard StallmanAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.