Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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.
Not currently seems to imply that at some point it will be
mandatory at some point. I find that somewhat presumptuous, but
perhaps I am reading too much into the "in this current time" bit. I
would put it as this is a proposal. It is not, and will not become
policy, unless something improves radically. Even so, it might never
become policy, and at this point a proposal in good enough shape to
even start discussing the merits of the idea does not exist. When a
proposal which is even maginally viable is licked into shape, it shall
be brought forth to light again. And, if it is very good, it might live
to see light in policy.
There is nothing pre-ordained about this idea to assume it will
become policy -- that happens when a whole lot of people agree that it
is a good idea.
> 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.
Generally, the forum for discussion development for Debian is the
debian-devel mailing list. If we are having to move to some other
forum, or wait around and not discuss this while something happens to a
DEP, I think the DEP drivers have failed.
At this point, I have spent some effort looking over the
proposed solution, thinking about the issue, and coming up witht he
flaws in the current proposal, and how they might be changed. I am
unlikely to keep this in my working set, and once it swaps out I am
unlikely to want to go through the same effort again.
Beware of a tall blond man with one black shoe.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C