Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
> > It seems to me that the primary objection to the presence of these
> > files without source is that they are then distributed as part of
> > Debian, in the source package. That violates our social contract.
> The counter-argument from affected maintainers is that we *do* have
> the source. It just happens to be in a different source package. We
> even know that, because when we build the binary package we use the
broader claim from Ian Jackson about files without source, from
Message-ID: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>:
The DFSG is correct - sourceless minified js files, GFDL docs with
invariant sections, gimp-generated pixmaps without the original gimp
source, etc., are all Not Free Software.
and the subject field had not yet changed to match. My apologies, I've
fixed that here.
> There is therefore no *actual* violation of the social contract here,
> just an inadequacy of bookkeeping.
In the case of files where the source is in another source package, yes.
\ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than |
`\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw |