Re: wanting to package wpoison
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Anyway, for whatever it's worth, I think your ``source as well as
> compiled'' condition is your DFSG is downright silly.
> I mean what's the practical difference between (say) distributing a
> compiled binary of program `X' as opposed to (say) distributing a
> shar file called X which, when invoked, stashes the source code for
> (say) X.c in a temp file, invokes the C compiler on it, and then
> copies the resulting binary back over the original executable shar
> file `X'?
Please provide your wpoison binaries for all 11 architectures that Debian
Additionally, everytime there is a security update, please compile all 11
Additionally, everytime there is a library change, a compiler change, or
the moon changes phase, please provide all 11 architectures.
I have ported Debian to my toaster. Please find yourself a toaster, of
the same make and model as mine, and compile my copy of wpoison for it.
> What are you going to do? Prevent yourselves from distributing a
> program that's been packaged in that way, just because it doesn't
> conform precisely to some abstract notion you have of what does
> and doesn't constitute ``compiled''?
Yes. That is what makes Debian so powerful and free. I can download the
source files for any package in Debian, and do what I need to do to it,
instead of relying on some unknown developer to update whenever he feels
Debian is not Microsoft.
> So I guess that soon I will amend my copyright terms to say that Wpoison
> may only be distributed in source form AND that it MUST NOT be distributed
> via any media which makes use of any form of encryption or copy-protection
> scheme (or schemes) which either is covered, or which may be covered under
> the DMCA.
That will violate the DFSG, I believe. You are forcing restrictions on
how the code may be used. Interpretation of the DMCA varies, as seen by
Alan Cox's restrictions on Changelogs for 2.2.x
Even plain text could be seen as a DMCA violation.