Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:59:35PM +0000, Noah Slater <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:46:51AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > I don't see what your problem is.
> > It seems that the problem is that “look for collaborators” is what
> > they're already doing, without apparent impact on the problem at hand
> > (the workload involved in copyright auuditing of the package), so
> > presenting it as a novel course of action isn't helpful.
> Well, that is great then. Obviously, I was not aware of this.
> My argument still stands though. This has nothing to do with the new copyright
> proposal. All this proposal does is cement what is already policy, and what
> packagers should already be doing. If the community thinks that policy is at
> fault, this should be discussed as a separate matter.
> As it stands, I see that people are effectively arguing that the copyright
> proposal should be abandoned because it is enforcing an aspect of policy that
> people don't wish to follow. All I am doing is suggesting that either we throw
> out this argument, or fix the policy.
Point me to the paragraph in the policy that says that the copyright file
must list all copyright holders and licensing info for all individual files
in the source package.
Let me help you: there is no such paragraph.