Re: Bug#879123: glee: source for configure is missing
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:52:41PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I am quoting:
>
> https://sources.debian.net/src/glee/5.4.0-2/configure/
>
> The license is very liberal. You can argue that it should be mentioned
> in debian/copyright but that does not make the file non-free or
> unsuitable for Debian main.
The license is a lie. It is clear that there is some source file that
was used to generate configure. Thus configure is a derivative work of
that file. As Adrian pointed out, very likely the FSF isn't the
copyright holder for that source file and very likely this permissive
"you can do anything" license does not apply to the source file.
Saying that a generated configure script is free software is kinda
stupid. The essence of free software is to provide users with the
ability to modify it and this freedom is lost when all they have is the
generated file.
> This is not true. The configure file is human readable and the preferred
> source of modification in this case. Please also note that the author of
> glee licensed his work under the more liberal BSD-2-clause license. You
> cannot compare two very distinct issues like minified JS files and
> automake files and claim consensus has been reached already.
I have worked with *lots* of configure scripts and I can say that I
never preferred modifying the generated script. Since configure scripts
don't have reasonable indentation, the program structure is completely
lost. Looking at them feels a lot like reading a binary disassembly. I
contend that "human readable" is not a reasonable assessment either.
> Again quoted out of context and not relevant in this case. The source is
> the configure script. Period. Please feel free to discuss this on
> debian-devel or move it to the CTTE. I am willing to oppose this
> nonsense and harmful misinterpretation of Debian's Policy whenever and
> wherever I can.
If you insist on disucssing this in a larger scope, chances are a ftp
master will notice and remove glee from stable (given Ximin's findings)
as it is not clear whether glee is distributable at all.
Do you realize that my original motivation in reporting this bug was
that I found a build issue with glee and wanted to write a patch? The
absence of source makes that difficult and makes DFSG#3 rather
theoretical. Why does DFGS#3 assure a "right to modify" when
modification is often impratical? I start to wonder whether we should
start a GR to clarify DFSG#3 that modification should be practical.
Helmut
Reply to: