[pkg-crosswire-devel] Fwd: sword-comm-mhc_2.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Roberto C. Sánchez]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 03:32:14PM +0200, Teus Benschop wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 at 15:10, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto at debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 02:07:18PM +0200, Teus Benschop wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The package was rejected. It was because the copyright didn't match with
> > > the DFSG.
> > >
> > > On thinking about this, I think that it does not in any way impact users
> > > who want to use the commentary that was to be included in the package.
> > > Everyone can install it from the online Crosswire repositories.
> > >
> > > Taking it one step further, my question is what the additional value of
> > > this package would have been in the first place?
> > >
> > > Was it to assist people who don't have any internet connection, or who
> > for
> > > certain reasons don't want to use that?
> > >
> > Several years ago I took it upon myself to package some of what I
> > thought would be the most common and useful modules.  It feels "better"
> > to me to be able to install components via apt rather than downloading
> > modules, for example here with Sword modules, CPAN modules, Python
> > modules, etc.  It simplifies deploying across multiple machines, where I
> > can deploy a meta-package that pulls in the necessary package as a
> > dependency, rather than having to script the installation of an external
> > component.  Just a preference on my part.
> >
> >
> > I get the point Roberto, it is clear.
> 
> Thinking about this a bit more, for this particular commentary, it might
> help if there were another source for it, a source that has a copyright
> notice that matches with the DFSG.
> 
I had that thought as well.  For a work as old as MHC, I think that
there must be a public domain electronic source for it.  Perhaps I just
need to make time to search for it.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez