On 03/02/12 01:39, Charles Plessy wrote: > Dear Ximin, > > the patch you proposed moves a lot of text without changing it, which makes it > difficult to review. Moreover, I think that there is a long-standing consensus > to not change the normative parts of this format unless unavoidable. > > I have refrained from commenting until you pinged the bug, because I know that > it is faster to write negative comments, and I wanted to give a chance to > others to write supportive comments first. However, no feedback came. For me > it underlines that the patch you sent is not creating consensus or enthousiasm. > > Every Debian developers have write access to the DEP Subversion repository, but > the purpose is to let all DDs create new DEPs. For modifications of the drafts > there needs consensus. At the current point, I strongly object to changes that > will invalidate existing Debian copyright files, and I strongly suggest to stop > perfecting the document unless there is a general agreement that some parts are > too difficult to understand. Seeing many people doing the same mistake is > usually a good metric for this. > > In our case, while it can be debated what is optimal to put or not put in > stand-alone license files, the Debian copyright files following the current > version of the specification already fit well their purpose. Let's defer > further complifications – or simplifications – to future releases. > > Have a nice day, > The patch *does not invalidate* existing copyright files. It moves (iirc) only two sections, and I wrote a quite lengthy explanation of all of the changes. It is not "perfecting the document", it's addressing the core problem of this bug. It's really not that significant a change. "Seeing many people doing the same mistake" - have you actually done a study of this or are you just assuming "nobody filed a bug therefore there's no problem"? Well, *I* filed *this* bug, and it's based on *real experience* in trying to use this specification. Some parts suck, parts which most maintainers probably wouldn't come across because licenses generally aren't as complex as "MPL-1.1 or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+". Do you have some specific comments about the contents of the patch? It should not take more than about 10 minutes to skim over, to see that I haven't done anything completely insane. Then, after this initial investment, it shouldn't be that hard to see whether the details are watertight or not. I should think my language is pretty straightforward. X P.S. have a look at "about:license" in a mozilla browser, which does exactly what I'm trying to get this specification to allow - i.e. quote "GPL-2" verbatim, rather than "GPL-2+" verbatim (since that is NOT A LICENSE). -- GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0 https://bitbucket.org/infinity0 https://launchpad.net/~infinity0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature