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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:33:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         Now, some of the objections you have heard is because of the
>  hard line you have been taking in this discussion about  looking for
>  and adding copyright holders is not, as far as I can see, reflected in
>  current policy.
>         And telling people they are doing a bad job and need to either
>  shape up or change policy does not actually seem to be corroborated by
>  policy, unless I am missing chunks.

Yeah, I apologise for this. This had been my understanding. Sorry.

>         BTW, to your list of solutions, I can add another one:
>  + realize this is busy work with little value in the common case, and
>    prefer to spend time otherwise improving the package.

On the other hand, I think this needs to be clarified.

I only maintain a small number of packages, but even then, I have regularly
found files contained within those packages which were included for various
reasons by upstream under a different license. In the case of planet-venus, I
remove a not insignificant number of these for the DFSG. Clearly, some amount of
checking each file is a good thing, so why not be explicit about what is
required of a developer for this?


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

Reply to: