Hello, On Fri 26 Aug 2022 at 11:58AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote: > More generally, I don't think it's always useful to talk about "the" > source or "the" preferred form for modification, as though there is only > one. I think it would be more appropriate to consider whether the form > in which some software is provided is suitable for exercising your Free > Software rights (as described in the FSF's "four essential freedoms", > for example) within the scope of whatever package we're talking about at > the time, or whether it's unsuitable for that use. If it's suitable, then > it's source, or close enough; if it's unsuitable, then that needs fixing. > > If we insist on a particularly puritanical view of what is source and > what is the preferred form for modification, then I think there is a > significant risk of producing a distribution which is unquestionably Free > Software, but either is missing useful Free software because it would be > too hard to get that software into a form that meets our self-imposed > policies, or can only contain that software as a result of individual > developers putting a heroic amount of effort into meeting those policies - > particularly if we always go back to the "true source" and generate from > there every time (which I will note that the ftp team specifically do not > insist on unless there is a technical reason to do so, they merely require > source to be *available*). Right. I think the ftpteam members agree, and hold far from the more extreme possible views about building everything all the way through. We just want to think through each case carefully enough to be satisfied that we're not failing the project in stewardship of the DFSG. Most times I send a "Comments regarding ..." mail from NEW saying "this seems a bit strange, can you explain" the result is an ACCEPT once an explanation has been provided. In the case of the Rust package that started the recent discussion, when I looked at it in NEW, I recall that I couldn't find a single non-generated file aside from metadata. That's the opposite extreme. In the discussion that followed I tried to respond to abstract cases in ways that were helpful, but with hindsight it would probably have been better just to say, "make some judgements about what's in its preferred form for modification, explain it in d/copyright, if you're doing so in the spirit of the DFSG then the ftpteam will probably agree." It's sort of like the "no detailed design work" for the TC. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature