Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2020-04-11 16:47:13) > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2020-04-11 10:36:44) > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:43:17PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > Debian: > > > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/g/gtk%2B4.0/copyright-3.98.0-1 > > > > plus we ship the LGPL in base-files' common-licenses. > > > > > > This kind of insanity is actually why I refuse to use the > > > machine-parseable copyright format. > > > > > > Nobody cares that some file somewhere deep down in the source tree > > > is perhams maybe somewhat more permissive than the license on the > > > whole. If the license on the whole is a copyleft license, then > > > that file somewhere deep down is made available to you as that > > > copyleft license, due to "copyleft". > > > > > > Anything else is insanity, and I refuse to waste my time on it. > > > > You seem to conflate two issues: > > > > a) writing debian/copyright in a machine-parsable format > > b) writing debian/copyright with too much detail included > > > > Please use the machine-readable format because then machines can > > help us. If you find it insane how detailed machine-readable format > > _can_ be, then please use the format _without_ the insanity. > > My point is that the machine-readable format is being "abused" to > deep-check the copyright status of all the files, and to reject > stuff/file bugs/... based on that. Abuse is seriously bad. Not sure what you mean by "abuse" in quotes, though, so let me try break it apart. Please tell me if I totally missed what you tried to say (I genuinely want to understand, not mock). Real bugs should be identified and reported, and using machine-readable data to aid in that is great. Or do you disagree with that? Filing bugreports for non-bugs is wrong, and doing it in automated ways (e.g. by use of machine-readable data) is abuse (unquoted) and should be stopped - regardless of who does it. If that's what you are talking about, then could you perhaps point at some examples that might help identify a pattern for countering such abuse? Since it keeps coming up that ftpmasters rejects for wrong reasons: Assuming good faith, I can only imagine it be _rumors_ only, stemming from a) clumsy behaviours in past dark ages and/or b) misinterpretation of rejection messages. Therefore: Please if anyone can shed more light on such rumors(!) please do - e.g. share recent(!) rejection emails showing it is fact, not rumor. > Yes, a machine-readable copyright format is useful for our users. It > is, however, not useful if it is being used to inspect packages and > kick maintainers for not doing useless busywork. It is my belief that > this is actually happening, and therefore I don't want to do the > machine-readable copyright format. > > People who care enough about the license of a piece of software that > they *do* need to know *all* these details can do the damn busywork > themselves; I will not. My point is that writing copyright file (as short as possible, and) machine-readable is *not* busywork. - Jonas -- * 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