Re: length of Debian copyright files
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.
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.
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: