On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > The question is what are the rules Yes, this is the discussion. Or more accurately, what we want the rules to be. The rules currently aren't very clear, and the games team is likely the most affected party in this. So we should make the rules for ourselves, and propose them as project-wide rules after we find that they work well. This means we cannot find the rules written in an official document: the rules that we have (SC#1, DFSG, Policy) are known, and there is disagreement on what they mean. So let's forget about them for a moment, and decide what we want. I'll give a suggestion as a starting point: * We require editable source for everything in main. * Source is the form that upstream would reasonably use to modify the work. * A file is editable if every aspect of it can be reasonably edited using only programs from main. * If there is no upstream, the Debian maintainer is considered to be upstream. * If upstream is unable to reasonably modify the work, then source does not exist and the work cannot be in main. This is by no means an attempt to summarize the consensus; it's just a starting point for a discussion. Please share your thoughts on these points and suggest new points or replacements. Because it's easy to lose track on a mailinglist, I created a wiki page[1] to record the state. I just added the above rules to it for now. If you propose anything, please add those options to the wiki as well. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Games/Source > You don't concede that artwork is not software. In my opinion they are > not the same and there is a reason why licenses like CC-BY-SA exist and > not just the GPL. You completely ignore the fact that art is useful > in many ways I too disagree with you about that. Like (other) art, code can also be "useful in many ways" even if you have no source. That doesn't mean anything. In particular, it doesn't mean we should accept code without source in main. > and that "source code" is something intrinsic to software. It is? Then what are the gimp and blender scripts that I use to generate the gfpoken pngs? I call them source code. But if you don't agree with me on this, then I'm not sure what I think of Red Eclipse. I thought we did agree, and trusted your judgement. What sort of problems are the reason it isn't in main? > I can replace images without touching a single line of source code. I can replace executables without touching code as well. How is that relevant? > My impression is that you are very demanding, a free software theorist > and someone who is literally everywhere to point out others mistakes. > [...] I understand that you are a bit angry, but please be respectful. Everybody is trying to do what is best. We can disagree about how to do that, but we should remain polite. (I think this post might also cause a similar reaction, and I tried to avoid that. If I didn't succeed, I apologize; I do not intend to offend you.) > otherwise someday we are going to have the perfect distribution but > nobody uses it. Our previous issue arose from my impression that you asked the question "how much non-free files may be in a package until it can no longer go in main?" You said you didn't ask that question, but this sounds to me like you are talking about a distribution with no non-free components (which is perfect), but with so little components that it is unusable. So we should relax our requirements (on availability of source) to make the system usable. You said before this was not what you meant, so I'll believe you, but please explain what you do mean, because I can't read it any other way. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature