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

Re: RFS: exaile

Le Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 07:55:43PM -0500, Eric Evans a écrit :
> In exaile-0.2.4/debs there is a binary debian package of python-gpod. At
> a minimum it's cruft, at worst it's a DFSG violation since we don't have
> the corresponding source. This should be removed.

Hi Eric,

Actually, as the DFSG is a set of guidelines, I think that only licences
can violate them, or more precisely fail to honor them. Python-gpod is
released under the LGPL, so it is necessary to give access to the
sources when it is distributed in a binary format. If the upstream
sources are left unmodified by the Debian source package which was used
to produce this binary package, one could suppose that there is no

But the more important question is to know if this binary package is the
derivative of a source package which has a licence forbidding the
redistribution of derived work without the sources. Inspection of the
copyright file of Debian's python-gpod shows that the situation is
unclear: there is no documented copyright for the packaging work.

Now furthermore, let us have a look at /usr/share/doc/python-gpod in the
package from the debs directory of the exaile sources: it seems that the
package was produced from an independantly created source package.
Nowardays, .deb does not always mean Debian...

Sorry for this nitpicking :) In the end, shipping a binary package of
python-gpod in the source package of exaile is useless, so the best
would probably to ask the upstream maintainers to remove it from their
tar.gz anyway.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Wako, Saitama, Japan

Reply to: