Re: Salsa CI news
Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> writes:
> Sources are somewhere, true. But build (binary) is not DFSG-compliant.
> I feel like you are making your point by pretending not to understand...
> Why all this denial?
I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
that the built binary is not DFSG-compliant. You clearly believe this,
but you're not explaining why except for reasons that seem clearly
incorrect.
For example, Alpine Linux, assuming one does not enable the non-free
repository, and thus Docker containers created using it appear to be
DFSG-compliant. They only claim OSI compliance, which is not precisely
the same thing, but there would need to be some indication that the Alpine
components used are in the very narrow set of OSI-approved but not
DFSG-compliant licenses.
Could you be (much) more specific about exactly what violations of the
DFSG you believe exist, rather than assuming everyone agrees with you and
then berating people for ignoring the DFSG? It seems far more likely
that, rather than ignoring the DFSG, people simply don't believe you're
correct in asserting there is a problem.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: