Re: jquery debate with upstream
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Philipp Kern <phil@philkern.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2014-03-11 00:09, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>>
>> Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern:
>>>
>>> as long as the code in question is not under a license that requires the
>>> full, non-minified source to be reproduced and if the copyright notices
>>> and license terms as potentially required by the license are present, I
>>> don't see why not. But I guess the latter is not commonly happening?
>>
>>
>> The most common case is that the file
>> http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.0.min.js
>> is included without
>> http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.0.js
>>
>> The minified file contains a copyright header, and the license is MIT,
>> so I believe shipping jquery-1.11.0.min.js without query-1.11.0.js is
>> allowed.
>>
>> So you'd say it is acceptable to leave jquery-1.11.0.min.js in a tarball
>> if it is unused (e.g. if it is removed in the clean target, and possibly
>> documented in README.Source)? Can maybe someone from the ftp-team
>> confirm this?
>
>
> how bad would it be for those upstreams to just include an unused copy of
> the non-minified version? Clearly it'd never be used by anything in the
> upstream packaging because you almost always want to ship minified JS to
> browsers in production. But if they already fetch the min and you have a
> working relationship with upstream... maybe they're sympathetic.
>From upstream's point of view, it often comes down to "extra work and
no gain". Avoiding busywork is a fairly compelling reason to not do
something.
> I still think it should be acceptable given that it's an open source
> project, it's clearly versioned from which source it comes and we check by
> not using the file that no changes have been done to the minification. I
> guess we could even go one step further and argue that the source for this
> is in fact in Debian. If we could generate the same minification result as
> jquery upstream in Debian, all we'd "need" would be the equivalent of a
> source-depends or a pointer in debian/copyright. It's not that we don't ship
> its source, after all.
My understanding is this is what the "Built-Using" field in
debian/control is supposed to help with, although I don't think it's
in widespread usage yet.
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: