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

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

Wouter Verhelst wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Main must be built with only packages from main.

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

No, that's not true.

It seems to me -- at least in the context of what Debian distributes and
calls "Main" -- that this assertion conflicts with the first section of
the social contract.

No, I don't believe so.

If you still insist, consider this: If I would know i386 assembler
(which I don't), I could theoretically hand-optimize software before I
upload it. Since I did hand-optimization, the resulting binary would no
longer be built using only Free Software; it would also incorporate the
fruit of my labour. Is the resulting binary now suddenly non-free -- or,
at least, should it go to contrib instead of main? If so, why? If not,
what's the difference between this example, and the question of
icc-built software?

Wouldn't the resulting Binary be non-free, as it no longer comes with the complete source (the 'preferred form for modification', as the GPL puts it)? Your hand-optimised assembler code is now part of the source, and if you don't provide the assembler source, the source is not complete.

Lewis Jardine

Reply to: