Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Sune Vuorela <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
> sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
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 . What gains have you seen proposed, that are not
real gains by your standard? What *would* be a real gain by your
> Discussions about this is welcome, but I think debian-devel is a
> better forum for that.
Agreed; followup fields set.
\ “How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand.” |
`\ —Emo Philips |