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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:13:29PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> No, look at the text I quoted : you suggested to maintain a different package.

Yes, out of several emails I sent to the list, you selected a single sentence.

I apologise if you got the wrong message from what I had written, it was not
meant as a personal attack. On the other hand, saying that maintaining packages
can be time consuming seems like such an obvious thing, I wonder why people are
bringing it up - unless they mean to suggest that we should cut corners when
rigorously checking free software made available for distribution.

> 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.

I appreciate the difficulties you might be experiencing here.

The distinction I was trying to draw is that this matter is totally unrelated to
the copyright documentation we keep in the packages. Considering that it is
already our mandate to check every single file, this is already a problem for
you. Sure, you have a lot to deal with, and finding collaborators is hard, but
using this as a flimsy reason to disregard the copyright proposal seems absurd.

> 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.

You selectively chose one thing I had written, please don't do that.


Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater

Reply to: