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

Re: length of Debian copyright files

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

Reply to: