On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop > accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind.
Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us all from my response to jeff's wild slander from the hip. There are two issues here, the important one being -policy compliance, the other stylistic. Since the bug was raised to red-alert-panic severity without pointing to a single clear policy violation, I'll ask again for the sake of our new audience, before I summarily close it by way of reply: Can someone show me any single MUST in policy that is violated by this debian/copyright file? Bonus points if you can get them all first time. Because by my reading, there apparently aren't any. I don't extrapolate from that to say this is a masterpiece of best practice, because its actually clearly one of the most appalling copyright files I've ever seen. Kid's don't clone this at home. I mean it. This is the kind of boilerplate abuse your parents and friends warned you about. (even if it is better than some of the ones Ganneff has to sort through -- that's nothing to brag about) I can make my excuses for that separately[1], but our law here is -policy, and if I, the boilerplate maker, ftp-admin, and any number of other developers have not spotted a violation of it in all the many years this has looked the way it does -- then we have a quite different serious bug on our hands we should know more about. I don't think that is the case though, I do agree this file needs the same sort of treatment the Smith inquisition recently gave the rest of the package text, and that will be done, but its probably not a job for -legal, and clearly not 'serious' in the BTS sense. Cheers, Ron [1] - Ok then, you asked for it: This package started out (intended) as an uncertain mash-up of various tablet related things from various sources. Right now it really is mostly just the linuxwacom driver, and I'm mostly hacking on it vicariously at present since the kernel driver is sound, and other folks are the XOrg experts where the trouble is. The copyright file apparently hasn't been polished since then and just contains the minimum required to cover the things that were going in there (and some fairly stupid typos). It makes sense to buff it up a bit now that things have a fairly stable form established. All the original attributions and licences are kept with the relevant source, this is just the cover page in the binary, and since it clearly has almost no additional information than the minimum required of it, I'd expect any wise user would not try to infer any such things from that nothingness and quickly look elsewhere for them instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
