[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2



On 17-Jul-2016, Uoti Urpala wrote:

> In essence, my central point is that you cannot consistently believe
> BOTH of these:
> * packaging not being up to date with latest upstream is just a
>   wishlist bug
> * packaging concatenating source files is such a horrible bug that the
>   package should be removed from Debian
> 
> If you want to argue "upstream convenience" as a reason for the
> second,

Maybe if that were the only justification offered. That's not the case
though.


Reading the discussion on debian-devel, and even reading the
discussion in this bug report, the argument for the source form of the
work rests on *whether* the form of the work allows modification on an
equal basis with upstream.

Neil Williams puts it well in this same bug report:

    Where one format can be modified by every user and another format
    can only be modified by some users, then the format which can be
    modified by everyone *must* be the accepted format or the package
    fails DFSG. When the second format is actually generated from the
    first format and cannot exactly regenerate the first from the
    second, it is obvious that the second format is not the source
    code in terms of the DFSG as changes to the second would be lost
    when the first is updated and the second gets regenerated.

    <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/830978#95>

Nothing about “upstream convenience” there. It's about equal access,
for all recipients of the work, to make and share their own build from
the source form of the work.

That entails receiving the work in such a form, and with all necessary
build scripts, to make modifications (or choose not to modify) and
build the work themselves to get the same result. That is, in brief,
the source form of the work.

Without the form of the work that is the *input* to the build tools,
and the build tools and script themselves as free software in Debian,
then the recipient cannot be said to have what they need to exercise
DFSG freedoms.

These points have already been made, but maybe not clearly enough so
far in this bug report. I hope that helps.

-- 
 \           “I have one rule to live by: Don't make it worse.” —Hazel |
  `\                                                          Woodcock |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: