On 12/20/2017 12:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > The problem with all of these discussions, however, and the reason why I > largely stopped participating in them (particularly with my Policy Editor > hat on), is that the rules for what one actually has to do in Debian to > get a package accepted are a bit confusing and only partly documented, and > the people who set those requirements basically don't participate in these > discussions. As long as the decision-makers aren't participating and we > don't have clear documentation of the rules, even talking about it is > pointless. > > I feel like what we really need is a working group that contains members > with the authority to speak for ftpmaster, along with a good cross-section > of interested parties, to get together on a public but separate mailing > list and hash out a concrete proposal for how we think copyright and > license notices should work in the project. Then bring that back to the > project. Otherwise, we're just going to keep having this discussion every > three months or so, and nothing is going to really change.
I fully agree with the above, and also strongly feel like we must get the FTP masters point of view. See Jeremy Stanley's post in this thread, and you'll understand that upstream OpenStack, for example, do not agree at all with the view of FTP masters that we need to list copyright holders. If such a copyright holder list isn't required by upstream (with even advice from its legal council), why have I wasted so much time? If I'm spending so much time on this, I at least would like to understand that it's fully legally required and/or what are the FTP master team motivations. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
