On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary > packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support > files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation > (GFDL). > Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to > warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right > thing to do? > Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate > overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL > documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but > distributed in binary form in the correct package. As a practical matter, it is not, AFAIK, possible (or at least, not acceptable) to create non-free binary packages from source packages in main, nor vice-versa. Therefore, two separate source packages would need to be uploaded... > Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar > file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and > mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new* > source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and > is distributed as non-free. in which case, you might as well build the tarball for the free source package the same way as you build the tarball for the non-free source package (i.e., by carving up the upstream archive). As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct practice because of the contract we've made stating that everything in our main archive is covered by the freedoms listed in the DFSG. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature