Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
>> > * The point of having the source code (with an appropriate
>> licence > etc.) is so that all our contributors, downstreams, and
>> users are > able to modify the code and to share their
>> modifications with each > other, with Debian, and with upstream.
>>
>> I agree this is an important consideration, but not serious
>> enough to reject a package.
Neil> So you consider that upstream are not fully-qualified users
Neil> somehow and therefore do not get the benefits of the DFSG? If
Neil> the freedoms of users who choose to interact with upstream are
Neil> reduced by choices made within the package then the package is
Neil> breaking the DFSG by penalising a field of endeavour.
Neil, I have a fairly strong negative emotional reaction when I read the
paragraph you wrote. I'd like to share that because I think if I share
where I'm coming from it will be easier for me to hear you, and easier
to participate calmly.
When I read the above, I'm worried because I think that freedoms I care
about would be limited, and I don't like to see the DFSG reshaped to
limit freedoms.
I'm afraid when I think I hear us seeding the contents of Debian to
upstream. We are Debian; we choose what Debian is.
I want to stress that I think you and I are in agreement on handlebars.
However, I do think the freedom to fork from upstream, to move away from
upstream practices we disagree with is important.
I also think that the freedom to "free," over time software even in
cases where upstream has a non-free source control system, or where
we're having to build up a new form of source code because of
restrictions on what's currently the source code are important.
I do not agree that being an upstream is a field of endeavour.
I do not agree that we must always use the same source code form that
upstream does. Sometimes upstream is wrong. Sometimes there are
multiple upstreams.
Sometimes we want to fork.
We do however need to ship the source code we use whatever that is. It
needs to really be source code. It needs to be a reasonable form in
which we would choose to make modifications. If there are other
plausible source forms that are being used (even if some of them are
non-free), and those source forms would make the modifications easier,
that's a strong argument that the software is probably not free as we
propose to ship it.
I do not wish us to make the upstream form of source so special that we
in our best judgment cannot override it.
I do hear your worry that you want to be able to exchange modifications
with upstream. Without modifications, without free flow of those
modifications, software is not free. I ask that we have the flexibility
to reject people who aren't actually shipping source they would use to
modify software while accepting people who legitimately disagree about
what the source form is.
Reply to: