On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:51:47PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > Requiring layered formats for > > > > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases. > > > > > > > > This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source > > > > does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source is what > > > > makes programs non-free. The contents of the Debian archive is not > > > > non-free just because we require source. > > > > > > Who is being a mindless sophist? > > > > People who scream every time we find a package with missing source, > > because obviously it's impossible that any such package could ever be > > distributed with source, and so by finding them we're making them > > non-free. > > That would be an interesting argument if there were no reasonable > basis to disagree about what "source code" means in the context of a > JPEG. The point of my mail was that there often is no clear (or > usable or freely manipulable; the relevant metric may vary) "source > code" version of a lossily compressed image. Your point is misplaced. It has got nothing to do with what I wrote. > > Wrong part of the thread, we've been here already. This is not > > directly relevant. > > What part of requiring layered formats for images makes it irrelevant > that there is no layered format "source" for certain images? Wrong part of the thread. Despite your repeated efforts to change the subject, the mails you are replying to are still not directly about definitions of 'source'. > > > > In most cases, requiring layered formats for source is going to result > > > > in getting layered formats for source. It is obviously the correct > > > > thing to be distributing; upstreams who have it but don't distribute > > > > it probably just didn't think of it. > > > > > > In a significant number of cases, requiring layered formats for source > > > will mean that DDs must create DFSG-sanitized "orig" tarballs by > > > removing images that upstream distributes. > > > > Or by adding images that upstream did not distribute. You're doing it > > as well. "Delete it" is *not* the only possible answer to a buggy > > package. Stop pretending that it is. > > "Delete it" *is* the only option for DFSG-incompatible files, although > a patch may later substitute a file that satisfies your whims. No. I can only assume malicious intent on your part at this point, as you have now twice directly ignored my indications of alternatives, and continue to spread FUD about them not existing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature