In <20091104001114.GA18405@kunpuu.plessy.org>, Charles Plessy wrote: >Le Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 12:29:00PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit : >> You can deliberately destroy the source code of almost anything that >> we distribute in Debian. That doesn't change what the source code was. >> [And honestly, I'm not convinced that such deliberate destruction >> complies with DFSG §2 anyway.] > >If the Project is really serious about it, I have to declare a couple of RC >bugs on some of my packages: I have sent manpages in Docbook and nroff > format Upstream, and some of them discarded the Docbook source, since they > are more comfortable editing the nroff source directly. At that point the nroff source may be the preferred form for modification. Basically you should include everything an isolated person might reasonably want in order to modify the software for their needs or the needs of others. It is a bit of a judgment call. If the Docbook is horribly out-of-date compared to the current nroff version, it wouldn't be the preferred form for modification. >I would rather stick to the interpretation that the preferred form of >modification is the one upstream uses, even if we think this is not optimal > and we would prefer he had done another way. That's never been Debian's interpretation of the "preferred form of modification". Hence the, *-firmware packages in non-free separated from the DSFG-free kernel in main. The final say goes to the maintainer(s) and, for new packages, the ftp- masters. However, violating the GPL (by not distributing the preferred from for modification) can be considered an RC bug (at the least) and may require your packages be moved to non-free for a release (at the least) or dropped from the repositories and their archives. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.