On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:30:34AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do our > > > job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality packaging! > > It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is > > really helping the package quality at all, and if it's worth it. > I would be interested in having numbers how frequently a d/copyright > file is accessed by users (should be possible to do via popcon > techniques). I don't know use cases when an user would access it... > A recent example (seqan2, currently in NEW) where I needed to review > lots of copyright statements seems that even upstream is not caring a > lot. Sure, most upstreams don't care about licenses, that's one of the reason writing a d/copyright is harder than copying some clear list put together by the upstream. > In short: We have examples where a maintainer spents a lot of time into > things that are matching our formal principles but do not match reality. ... which is not just about d/copyright. > In other words: We are serving our princinples but not our users. This > is no vote to drop or relax our principles but sometimes some less > strict handling might be helpful for all involved parties. I'd happily vote to drop or relax some of our principles. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature