Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:43:34 -0500 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> Or are you asking us to potentially overrule the ftpmasters inclusion of
> libjs-handlebars?
No. I want to keep libjs-handlebars in the archive.
> Or potentially overrule the release managers
> determination of whether this particular bug is RC or not?
Yes, this would be a result of first question (whether browserified source is dfsg free). If browserified source is dfsg free, this bug cannot be rc.
> 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.
The issue is not about license.
> > 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 approached ctte because I thought it was a technical question. Whether browserified (mostly conatenated and slightly rearranged code) can be considered source. I have no objection to removing minified code (which renames variables, removes white spaces etc and makes it unreadable and impossible to debug or patch). I have seen some folks mixing these two issues.
I also agree its not an ideal solution, but my contention is about its severity.
> 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)
>
>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: