[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:

> The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary
> packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support
> files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation
> (GFDL).

> Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to
> warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right
> thing to do?

> Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate
> overrides changes) to non-free/doc?  This would mean that the GFDL
> documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but
> distributed in binary form in the correct package.

As a practical matter, it is not, AFAIK, possible (or at least, not
acceptable) to create non-free binary packages from source packages in
main, nor vice-versa.  Therefore, two separate source packages would
need to be uploaded...

> Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar
> file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and
> mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new*
> source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and
> is distributed as non-free.

in which case, you might as well build the tarball for the free source
package the same way as you build the tarball for the non-free source
package (i.e., by carving up the upstream archive).

As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct practice
because of the contract we've made stating that everything in our main
archive is covered by the freedoms listed in the DFSG.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: