Hi all, now that copyright-format 1.0 has been formally released as Debian policy, I would like to restart the discussion about getting this issue fixed.
I had been using the SVN for DEP as a baseline for patches, but now I guess the source code for this is somewhere else - could one of you please point me to it? Also, shall I continue on this bug report, or shall I start a thread on debian-devel@ or debian-projects@? Thanks, Ximin On 11/02/12 16:41, Ximin Luo wrote: > Updated patch to apply against recent changes made by plessy - attached > version > applies against r274 in SVN (Sat 11 Feb 2012 12:44:26 GMT). > > Is there somewhere else you guys are discussing this? Some other mailing list, > or an IRC channel? > > Thanks, > Ximin > > On 03/02/12 10:53, Ximin Luo wrote: >> 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
