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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

>         At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
>  that had better be never.

Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and
processed, and that needs to be addressed) and has driven the entire
formation of the specification to date.

> If the intent is for this to be broadly adopted, the specification
> should be fixed as early as possible, and we should not adopt a
> flawed specification inder the guise that it is currently
> "voluntary".

I don't see what you're saying with this. Are you saying that it
should not be adopted by *anyone* to see how it works, until it
becomes mandatory? Or is there some specific “we” you're thinking

Surely it's necessary for the specification to actually be implemented
in various real circumstances (which I can only see as meeting the
definition of “adopted” by those who choose to use it), to find and
fix the wrinkles *before* making it mandatory.

> Frankly, I think that the spec should have optional parts, and parts
> we need, and we should try to come to an consensus on the required
> part of the spec, and the optional parts should be clearly outlined
> in the specification.

Yes. I don't know anyone interested in this specification who has
proposed otherwise.

 \     “I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.” |
  `\                                                     —Groucho Marx |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: