Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Noah Slater <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions
>> of whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time
>> seeing either of your reasons stated above as being RC-level bugs.
> You don't think that possible DFSG problems are RC bugs? :/
You gave two reasons:
* [...] it serves as documentation that the package has been thoroughly
checked for licensing issues.
* It also provides a nice summary for our users.
Could you explain to me how the lack of those two things is a possible
DFSG problem? I assume that this is based on the first, but that seems
like quite a stretch to me. The same assurance, for what good there is in
it, could be drived from a statement in debian/copyright saying "I checked
every file in this package for DFSG licensing problems."
Also, no, I definitely do not think that a possible DFSG problem is an RC
bug. I think that an *actual* DFSG problem is an RC bug. A possible DFSG
problem is only a possible RC bug. Surely this is obvious?
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>