Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
> the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
> So answering criticism of the current spec with "well, it is not
> going to be policy any time soon, so just urn your attention elsewhere"
If you got that impression, I can only say I don't think it's
accurate. Try this:
The machine-parseable copyright format is still in draft form and is
not currently mandatory, so no-one is forced to use it.
Those who don't like the form it's currently in are welcome to discuss
it, once the discussion moves to a forum more amenable to actually
building on what is discussed. I believe this is in progress with a
DEP under way.
Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format for
‘debian/copyright’ apparently exist, but I don't understand their
position yet :-)
> There are wrinkles being pointed out already.
Sure. I eagerly await the appearance of the DEP so the discussion can
properly get underway; as it is, this is currently far more heat than
\ “What we usually pray to God is not that His will be done, but |
`\ that He approve ours.” —Helga Bergold Gross |