[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> 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: