Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:14:33PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
> ...
> > Often the most difficult part of packaging are the unique rules the
> > Debian ftp team requires for debian/copyright that are not required in
> > distributions with actual lawyers. That's a completely separate topic.
>
> That seems needlessly snide, and glosses over the fact that we are bound
> by constraints that other distributions are not, such as giving a damn
> about the license conditions we inflict on our downstreams, which I
> suspect the lawyers you allude to are not being retained to contemplate.
That seems needlessly snide, I am pretty sure the lawyers at companies
like Red Hat or Oracle are retained to contemplate avoiding unnecessary
legal risks.
In legally risky areas like MP3 companies like Red Hat also have a
history of being far more cautious than what we put on our mirrors.
It would be even more reason to get a statement from an actual lawyer,
instead of basing everything on "the FTP team's view" of non-lawyers.
Status quo is that the ftp team sets rules that cause plenty of work and
frustration among contributors - and that might not even be required.
It would make life easier for many people if there would be:
1. A proper legal opinion on what is actually required for debian/copyright.
2. Some research what is actually useful for our users.
3. A discussion what can be done without too much burden for maintainers.
There are so many things about the current debian/copyright
handling that don't make much sense, e.g. the problem that
DEP-5 debian/copyright does show the actual copyright of a
binary package in all cases makes it much less useful for users.
> Cheers, Phil.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: