Re: buildd administration
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> You just try to make a point out of buildd.net not having a direct
> source link which is completly irelevant imho.
Hey, I don't care if there's a direct link or not. I care if the source
is available for anyone to go download. If it's available from some
obscure place, great, that's new information in this thread. Where is it?
I'll go link to it and make it less obscure and then we can have more
interesting discussions.
> If you (as in buildd.d.o) want to add a source link then do it. That is
> debians decision ultimately. So far Debian hasn't made that addition and
> Ingo didn't want to make it. That is your/his choice and changes nothing
> on the freeness of the software. It just changes the propagation medium.
This may sound heretical to you, but I don't consider software to be
DFSG-free unless there's actually a copy somewhere that people can get to.
If the source is unavailable, the software isn't free, regardless of what
theoretical license is attached to the theoretical source that no one has
access to.
If you only want to distribute the software via e-mail, fine, send me a
copy of it, I'll put it up on my public web site, and then it will be
free. And then one could have a more meaningful conversation about where
it should fit into buildd.debian.org.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: