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

Re: census: missing source packages

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:52:58AM +1000, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:41:43 +0800
> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I've been looking at the apt sources.list snippets included in the
> > census and despite my prodding late last month, there are still five
> > distributions that do not provide source packages despite offering
> > binary packages. In one case I've even found users complaining on
> > their distribution's forums about this. I've verified that in each of
> > the cases where I can't find source packages, there are LGPL or GPL
> > binary packages listed in the derivative's Packages files. So not
> > only are some of our derivatives not living up to FLOSS principles,
> > but a few are likely even violating licenses and copyright law.
> Thats unfortunate.

As far as it concerns Knoppix, every additional binary package should be
matched by a source package on alioth, so I guess I'm not amongst those
five. In the rare case that I forget to upload a new package version, I
do occasionally get complaints from developers, and upload the missing
source ASAP. Knoppix add-ons are mainly shell scripts with
source-included, anyways.

> [...]
> > Now, my question is; what should Debian do about this if anything?
> As far as enforcing copyright, nothing.

I agree, since the license is mainly a contract between software
developer, user and distributor. If developer or distributor fail to
fulfill the contract, it is not a third parties obligation to take
immediate action, unless someone calls for help.

> If there are tools created by
> DDs (or contributors) it might be worth telling them, as they are in a
> position to demand the derivative picks up their game.
> After that they would have to go the heavy handed route ...
> I'd support something like Neil suggested, with the warning on
> derivatives pages (or on the index?) that the derivative might not be
> playing nice.

For which goal should such a public warning be useful, in addition to
notifying developers by private mail? I don't think that derivatives
will appreciate a "negative advertising" just after they decided to join
the derivatives list. If they don't follow the guidelines for being
listed, you could just remove the page, but otherwise, I don't think we
should mess with contributed pages without consent of the page authors.

> thanks,
> kk
> -- 
> Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
> Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
> http://www.kgoetz.id.au
> No, I won't join your social networking group

Additionally, picking on derivatives developers without a concrete case,
would for sure decrease their motivation to join the census or getting
even listed as Debian derivative.

Klaus Knopper (http://knopper.net/knoppix/)

Reply to: