Re: Debian machine usage policy
[moving this to -devel]
"Oliver Elphick" wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> >Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >> I suggest also, that we add to the policy:
> >>
> >> Debian facilities should not be used for developing non-DFSG software,
> >> without approval by the DPL after consultation on the devel or private
> >> lists.
> >>
> >> Other policies prohibit commercial use, but non-DFSG is a wider category
> .
> >
> >This would mean that people arn't allowed to use project machines for
> >building non-dfsg free packages. It could even be interpreted to mean that
> >the autobuilders for other architectures, that run on debian machines,
> >cannot be used to port non-free packages to other architectures.
>
> What I had in mind was developing new software that was non-compliant
> rather than building packages that are already in the archive.
So you can't use Debian facilities to make that initial package
for non-free? Or for trying to build non-free software on other
arches to see if there are problems before you ITP (or see if the
software is suitable for you to try to convince the author of
freeing it?)
There are cases where this is justified, so please be careful in
the wording (if we really must specify policy to this degree).
Example: The XForms author is likely to free the code (he said he
would; we hope he will). There are currently some arches that
don't have a glibc2.1 version of the current non-free binary-only
XForms. Should/Could I offer to compile it for him knowing that
sources are currently not available for distribution, just we at
least have a binary some arches that don't have it yet? I have
offered upstream to compile XForms V0.89 for alpha on a private
machine, thinking it's best not to do that on Debian facilities.
But perhaps I should think of the users of thoses arches instead,
and figure it would be best to compile it and have it available
for users.
Peter
Reply to: