Hi, Ximin Luo wrote: >> On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license >>> short names, [...] >>> If you would like to work on a >>> robust syntax, I propose you do it as an independant specification that can >>> later be proposed for adoption not ony to use, but also to SPDX, OSI, >>> ADMS.F/OSS, etc. > > This feels very much like delay tactics, and makes me feel very > frustrated as someone who is trying to contribute to Debian. I am probably most to blame here. When I some good changes in your proposal, my reaction was to sent encouragement instead of picking them out and filing new bugs or looking at the proposal as a whole. In my opinion, to develop a standardized syntax for short names, it makes most sense to develop it within Debian's copyright format and only later, if there's interest, to extract the spec for reuse by others. In the short term, SPDX et al would be relevant in that (1) they have some expertise on the subject, so it could be worth getting their advice, and (2) their license names currently can be easily mapped to and from Debian's, without changing names most of the time, and that is an attribute worth preserving. I suspect Charles's suggestion was meant to take advantage of (1), but there are other ways to ask for a body's advice. I'll send my feedback on your patches in a separate mail. Thanks again for your work. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121225211423.GB3126@elie.Belkin
