Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:02:31PM +0000, Noah Slater <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > 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.
> > If you don't stop writing crap like this, I really think I *will* stop
> > maintaining these packages.
> I don't see what your problem is.
> If we were suggesting some totally arbitrary and time consuming task, then I
> could understand your concerns. However, you should be checking each file as a
> part of your packaging, all that is being requested is that you document this
> for the FTP masters and our users.
> The focus here should be on producing quality software, with a rigorous and open
> process, so that people can be confident that what we're shipping is totally
> free software. Cutting corners to save a bit of time, simply because a package
> is large, does not seem to fit well with this goal. Hence my suggestion that if
> a package you are maintaining seems like too much work, perhaps it would make
> sense to collaboratively maintain it.
No, look at the text I quoted : you suggested to maintain a different package.
Now, as I said earlier in this thread, there have been several calls for
help on those big packages that *are* a problem to do the scan you would
like to see on all packages, yet, nobody joined teams as a result.
Following your advice, we should stop maintaining openoffice, iceweasel,
xulrunner, kde, and who knows what other packages because nobody cares
enough to scan tens of thousands of source files for copyright holders.
That does sound like a plan.