Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Scott Kitterman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >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 :-)
> I'd be one of those.
Thank you for your explanation; after reading it, I would not actually
classify your position as stated above :-)
> Whenever you add new structural rules on a file it creates more
> things one needs to know, more things to get wrong, and more work.
> This is inevitable.
> To counter this, I see some very minor potential benefit. IANADD, so
> I don't get a vote, but if I did, I'd be against it.
Okay, so it's not that you're against having a machine-parseable
format for the file, but that you don't yet see that the benefit
outweighs the cost.
> The cost/benefit ratio of the proposal is certainly open to
> reasonably varying opinions, so I don't expect arguing over
> different perceptions to have a lot of benefit. I do think it's
> worth (once) pointing out why I don't like the concept.
As I understand your position, it's not the concept that you don't
like, but your perception of the cost:benefit ratio. Is that a fair
> I'll convert my packages when it's required by policy.
Okay. Certainly I would hope there will be demonstrable (as opposed to
the merely potential) benefits to such a format, before anyone
considers making it mandatory.
\ “I wrote a song, but I can't read music so I don't know what it |
`\ is. Every once in a while I'll be listening to the radio and I |
_o__) say, ‘I think I might have written that.’” —Steven Wright |