Peter Palfrader <wea...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote: > > > Listing the licences (not necessarily copyright holders) in a > > machine readable format would allow lintian checks to be > > developed, and maybe even automatic license compatibility checks > > to be performed. > > The way this process should work is that you (or somebody) writes > those tools.
In the absence of a format? Please remember that, for most of its lifetime, the proposed format has been undergoing changes that would invalidate such tools; it's still a draft proposal. > Then, if DDs see that those tools are useful they will convert their > debian/copyright files to take advantage of those tools all by > themselves. No one will have to force them. Certainly, no one has proposed forcing use of the machine-parseable format in anything like the foreseeable future. One constant on the page for the draft proposal is the statement that it is *not* yet a proposal to change policy. To repeat what Noah has said elsewhere: Please separate any talk of policy requirements about “what information must go into the ‘debian/copyright’ file”, from work on making that file machine-parseable. The two issues are orthogonal. -- \ “The best is the enemy of the good.” —Voltaire, _Dictionnaire | `\ Philosophique_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
