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

Re: copyright precision

Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:55)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
>> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
>>> So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we 
>>> continue to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to 
>>> do so?
>> Same reason that we should continue to care about ability to install 
>> multiple major versions of a library concurrently, and that daemons 
>> are not only linked correctly but also sensibly configured and 
>> started by default.
>> 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!
> Does that justify REJECTing a package which is imperfect in this
> respect, though ?

Good question.  Thanks for bringing me back to the start of this thread 

No, not categorically: That unfairly punishes¹ packages improving their 

But I strongly believe we should not stop caring either.

Similar to how we strongly encourage use of proper SONAME even if not 
done upstream, or readily working daemon config - but do not mandate it: 
It seems realistic to me that we raise the bar in the future, e.g. by 
tagging those daemons and libraries being excellent, and similarly those 
copyright files with full machine-readable coverage.

 - Jonas

¹ netatalk is missing from Jessie solely due to improved licensing info 
otherwise unnoticed for 15 years: https://bugs.debian.org/751121

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: