Hi fellow devs,
I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.
I poked ftp-master about this problem:
<lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why can
the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be DFSG-nonfree?
And I got the following explanations:
<spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT. Otherwise I
would have PRODded.
<ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
modification. They are usually generated from something. If the file it was
generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
it can't be shipped. Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.
The pictures we're talking about are:
* https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
* https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg
"alipay" and "wechat" are the top-2 domination payment platforms in Chinese
market. And the two QR code pictures are generated from the corresponding
APPs by the upstream author. The whole software project is licensed under
GPL-3 and the QR codes are used for receiving donations.
Why are they non-free?
Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.
1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.
2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.
3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the package
build process.
"Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the hashsum
mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be evil?"
I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not byte-to-byte
equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.
Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free? Is DFSG over-interpreted in
this case? How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
[1] The package has been REJECT'ed for two reasons:
1. "doc/*_donate.jpg are probably not DFSG-free"
2. Missing copyright information for "package/luci-compat/tool/po2lmo/src/*"
There is no problem with the second point. This mail only talks about the first point.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature