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

Re: DEP-5: Please clarify the meaning of "same licence and share copyright holders"

Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
can change rapidly)
Why? We have been over this before.

And I don’t recall anyone explaining in which way it could actually be
useful.  “It can be parsed automatically” is not a sufficient
justification for such a large amount of work.  What is the use case?
What would this data be used for?

We are developing DEP 5 to codify best practice in a format that is machine
parseable. If best practice means that we don't list copyright statements in a
legally meaningful way, then so be it. I was asking questions so that I could
understand this particular use case.

Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained they
don’t want to waste their time with such bikeshedding, this discussion
is 100% useless.

I agree.
I think we need:
- one tool that generate the new copyright files. People forget to check
  and update files; and the non-tiny packages need such tools (if we need
  the DEP5 format). (the tools as an helper, ev. overwritten by maintainer
- one or more tools that decode the new format. I agree that it is useless
  to have "it can be parsed automatically" if nobody "parse it automatically".
- and a reason

Having the first tool helps in defining the format (we see the real problem
in real cases), and to change/improve the format when we saw really problems.

So before continuing DEP5, could we have a DEP5 the two tools?


Reply to: