Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
> That's not a win, AFAICT.
Don't use it then, I guess.
As Steve pointed out, we're working an a format that people can use voluntarily
if they wish. We are not suggesting that this format become mandatory at this
stage, at least not until it had seen widespread adoption. As someone who's been
maintaining several packages with this format for over a year, I am pleased to
tell you that I find it very useful and easily maintainable. YMMV, of course.
> Is it really useful to have only a subset of packages using the format?
> Isn't only going to be the small packages that have no particular
> licence problems that would adopt it because it's almost trivial to do
> so? Unless maintainers of complex packages or packages where licence
> problems are likely (those that need exceptions added to the GPL etc.)
> can implement the format cleanly, is there really any benefit?
You are using the Nirvana Fallacy in your argument.
Even if only one person finds the format helpful, there has been benefit. For
every additional person who finds this format helpful, even more benefit is had,
and each packages shares a consistent, readable, and parseable structure.
> There are elements of the format that aid human readability but making
> the format completely machine-parseable means making allowances for so
> many ifs and buts that the copyright files become only readable by
> machine.
Of course, this is not true. What a peculiar thing to say.
The format proposal follows debian/control, and is quite simple in structure.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Reply to: