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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Noah Slater 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.

You are requesting work from other volunteers and it's bad taste to do so.

> 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.

Those checks have not always been part of the requirements. And I'm not
convinced they are always needed.

We should document the various licenses used in the source package, we
should maybe also document the default license for new code added upstream
but I don't see the point of collecting a list of copyright holders and
keeping it up-to-date.

We should be able to trust by default upstream authors on the license
claim, maintainers should be encouraged to audit their packages when
possible but we should not blame them for not having it done. After all we
have ftpmasters who are doing it anyway. Of course, if you know you have a
bad upstream you might want to be more careful than one that is very
strict in its patch integration policy.

Raphaël Hertzog

Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :

Reply to: