Le jeudi 12 août 2010, Russ Allbery a écrit : > I don't think anyone disagrees with this, including the ftp-masters. The > question is whether the source package also needs a copyright file of its > own. As we are distributing these files, it seems reasonable to document their licence. But the Policy is not clear about that requirement. Now, about compilation issue, for me, compiling a package means applying whatever rule is needed to produce the target binary package. In the case of a non-recompilable binary that gets stripped during this process, the “compilation” we apply to is is a deletion, that is done using tools from main. The problematic binary being only in the source package, I do not think it is relevant to oppose that “I cannot build the original tarball from source using free tools”, because the original tarball is not meant to be built from source, as it is the source. As I saw no opponent to such a solution, then I shall simply keep the binary Flash file and its source code on the original tarball, and strip them at build time. Let me see what happens next. -- Tanguy Ortolo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature