Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > In shorter words: I think something should be done about the copyright
> > file to encourage developers to actually perform an audit of the
> > license status of files in their packages before they upload. The
> > current copyright template doesn't really encourage this; I like the
> > machine-parseable system because it makes it easy to organize such an
> > audit.
>
> Try doing that on iceweasel or xulrunner. Hint: there are about 30000
> files and a real lot of copyright holders.
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is.
If you think that sounds like too much work, maintain a different package.
> On top of listing copyright holders, I must say listing the individual
> files for each license in the copyright file is also a major PITA. While
> wildcards can be used, a huge mix of license like webkit is makes it
> really painful to update. OTOH, I really don't care what files are under
> what licence. I *do* know that there is a mix of BSD-2, BSD-3 and LGPL
> code, plus some extra libraries embedded, and that any addition to
> webkit is licensed under BSD or LGPL because upstream does enforce that
> (except, obviously, embedded libraries, but we already have to check if
> any is added to avoid duplication and build against the system one
> whenever possible)
You might not care, but the package users might do.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Reply to: