Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Browserified files are readable and editable javascript files. I
> believe this meets DFSG 2 requirements. Someone who is familiar with
> javascript can easily modify and run modified versions.
[...]
> I don't think preferred format of upstream to accept patches should not
> be a criteria to keep a package away from main.
>
> I request CTTE to make a ruling on this issue.
Could you clarify what the precise question is that you'd like the CTTE
to answer?
Are you asking the CTTE to make a non-binding formal announcement using
6.1.5 as to whether, in the opinion of the CTTE, browerified source is
source under the DFSG?
Or are you asking us to potentially overrule the ftpmasters inclusion of
libjs-handlebars? Or potentially overrule the release managers
determination of whether this particular bug is RC or not?
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I definitely think we're not an appropriate body to rule on a question
> like whether a particular license is DFSG free.
I agree. We can make a statement, but that's about it.
> However, here we're asked to give advice on whether something is
> source code. Is the question of what is the source code for a given
> package technical, and thus within our remit?
I think that's a narrow enough technical question for us to exercise
6.1.1 or 6.1.4, but I think the original decision on this question
involves the ftpmasters (who have already accepted this package, but
possibly without addressing this issue) or the release managers (who
don't appear to have made a decision as to whether this bug is RC or
not).
I'd certainly be more comfortable if the ftpmasters and release managers
would weigh in here.
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
"You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember
when you are old."
-- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413)
Reply to: