On 2026-01-30 06:13, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...] I have issues with your last question which I will raise as a
general question to debian-project - and to avoid it being mistaken as
a personal issue (which it very much isn't), I will clarify my concrete
reflections here and keep that other post more general.
Sounds good, thanks.
This package depends on at least 3 package not currently in Debian:
python3-chevron, python3-diffenator2, python3-gftools-,
python3-ufomerge. Why is that? Are those dependencies an oversight or
intentional?
Note that python3-gftools- looks suspicious, can you please clarify
why
that is?
I note that the debian/ packaging is under a different license than
the
actual package. Usually the packaging follows the usptream license for
simpliciy. What's the reason for diverging here?
Why do you ask? I mean, is it part of the scope of your investigation
to question how I choose to license my contributions to Debian, also
when my choice is compliant with the DFSG? Which Debian Policy do this
quetion concern? If none, and your question is tied to some unwritten
golden rule, then how am I able to avoid burdening future
investiongations, given that I cannot read your minds and you operate
from unwritten rules?
The questions aim at helping me form an opinion on the matter. They do
not reflect written or unwritten policy.
This last question of yours made me hesitate replying at all: I felt
that I was being unreasonably pressured to defend my choice of
licensing - that your role as gatekeeper for getting my work approvied
into Debian caused your personal opinions on what licensing choices are
"better" would unfairly bias mine. So I stuck my head in the sand and
waited for that danger to go away. And happily it did: The package got
approved.
No, those questions weren't related to approval or rejection, they came
from genuine curiosity. Going forward, I'll ask these questions in a
separate, private email conversation to make it easier to distinguish
what's part of the process and what's not.
-rt
