Re: Package with non-free build-depends
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:55:50PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Hm, I don't think I like this. The gif images aren't the preferred form
> > > of modification. Would we accept it if someone had a program written in
> > > a language which only had a non-free compiler, then uploaded source
> > > packages to main which contained object files, and just set
> > > Architecture: i386 ? I don't think so.
> >
> > That's the wrong analogy, because images are not programs, they are data.
> > If I wrote this email in a non-free editor, would you consider the data in
> > the email non-free just because of that?
>
> On the other hand, if you change the program, you would like to change
> the documentation along with it, yes? And in an entirely free system,
> doing so would either destroy the images or leave them incorrect.
> Losing a feature just because you recompile is not the mark of a free program.
What _is_ on those images, anyway? I didn't see anyone saying that
recompiling would destroy the images or leave them incorrect.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: