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

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:28:01 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque@debian.org> said: 

> I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > it says "the package in main must be buildable with tools in
>> > > main".
>> > That is still the case. The fact that the package in main is
>> > built using non-free tools is irrelevant -- it can be rebuilt
>> > using software only in main; it can be ran using software only in
>> > main; and the difference is not noticeable except by comparing
>> > checksums, benchmarks, or to those with an intimate knowledge in
>> > compiler optimizers.
>> > A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's
>> > freedom.
>> If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users
>> who would not find the package usable otherwise, distributing
>> binaries built with such a compiler induces your users to be
>> dependant (indirectly) on non-free software.  That is a freedom
>> issue.

> I tend to agree with Wouter on this issue. The source can compile
> with gcc. Anyone with the sources, and gcc can rebuild the package
> and It Works. No difference in functionality, merely a difference in
> performance.

> Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them
> verbatim): the package in main must be buildable with tools in main

> Note what it does not say: the package in main must have been built
> only with tools in main

	That is all that policy may require, my reading, however, is
 that this violates the DFSG. We shall have things in main that
 require non-free components to display that behavior; and can't be
 readily reproduced using free tools (the maintainer is admitting the
 behaviour of free version is significantly different).

> This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of
> the law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the
> m68k cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was
> non-free. (I have not verified the accuracy of the non-free claim of
> the cross- compiler)

	And the spirit of the DFSG is violated.

> Also, this discussion is academic as the maintainer is going to
> split the package into two: gcc build in main, and icc built in
> contrib. Given the circumstance, I felt that this action is the
> best.

	Quite so.

> We could fork this into a discussion of re-building all packages
> uploaded (ala source only uploads) which neatly sidesteps the entire
> ``intent of buildable with tools in main'' issue entirely.

	That is a different thread altogether.

"I am ... a woman ... and ... technically a parasitic uterine growth"
Sean Doran the Younger
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: