Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
On Sun, Mar 21 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> writes:
>> On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
>> source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
>> something in upstream tarball is non-free, I believe we should do
>> repacking (there, we might use a bit more standardization on how we
>> implement get-orig-source in such cases, but that's a different
>> issue). In fact, doing that might even be a way to push our upstream to
>> get rid of those non-free bits from their tarballs as well.
> In my experience, it definitely is. It can cause some upstream grumbling,
> but for example the next major version of OpenAFS will be usable without
> repacking (although I may end up still repacking to delete the very large
> WINNT directory that isn't used in the Debian build).
I think that if Debian wants to still considered to be a part of
the open source/free software community, it _has_ to contain the
sources of the software. If the source software is a part of Debian (as
it should be, in my opinion), the DFSG applies (seems somewhat weasely
to try to wriggle our way out of the DFSG otherwise).
If we want to change our foundation documents, and remove the
awoval to the concept of being 100% free, or to say that Debian, and
thus the parts of Debian covered by the DFSG, are just the binary bits,
then we can do so via constitutionally approved methods like GR's with
appropriate majority requirements.
Is this what is being considered?
Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C