On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:30:32AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:55:12PM +0200, Andreas B. Mundt wrote: > > It contains so-called ROM-dumpers in assembler code which have been > > removed for DFSG reasons on the older versions of this package, and I > > followed that example and removed them from the version in sid as > > well. > > > > However, as dumping the ROM of the calculator is an important feature, > > I had a closer look at the files removed and I found that they are all > > GPLv2+ (the upstream changelog mentions some rewrite and also some > > licence changes). However, they are still assembler. > > Assembler is just as valid a programming language as any other (or more, > compared to, say, Malbolge). And here you have comments, #ifdefs and so > on, so it's not the result of disassembly. I agree with this > > Ie, fully kosher DFSG code. > > > Is it necessary to remove the files for DFSG reasons? > > No, why? They come with source which is clearly the preferred form for > modification. If assembler was forbidden, we'd have to kick out such > unimportant packages as linux, etc. If there is code that was the result of disassembly in-line (e.g. take the code, make sense of it, change some names), there's a good chance that code is still under the license of the app from which it was taken. if that is the case, this code would be non-free. From a quick glance, it doesn't appear this is an issue.Have you asked the old maintainer why? -T > > -- > ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] 20130819223032.GA11013@angband.pl">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20130819223032.GA11013@angband.pl > -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature