Bug#27906: PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Roman Hodek writes ("Re: Bug#27906: [PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's"):
...
> It's the consent of many porters (including James Troup, ..., me, ...)
> that we don't break the GPL by bin-only NMUs, as the complete source
> is still available in an "official" way: first the usual source
> package, plus additionally a patch available from the BTS.

With all due respect (and I have a lot of respect for the porters and
the work they do), the porters' consent is irrelevant.  The porters do
not determine what the licence on the software is; the original
authors do that, and if they use the GPL, then the GPL says what is
and isn't allowed.

GPL v2, s3, last para, emph mine:
   If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
   access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
   access to copy the source code _from the same place_ counts as
   distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
   compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

The BTS is not the same place as the FTP site.  For example, many
people make CDs and mirrors of the FTP site but not of the BTS.

> I'm aware that this is not 100% clean, but bin-only NMUs are an
> important instrument for us porters. There are some circumstances
> where they seem necessary and/or justified:

I don't understand your objection.  All I want you to do is not to
give dpkg-buildpackage the -b flag if you've modified the source, so
that you upload the source along with your binaries.  This is exactly
what you're doing atm, except that you're not distributing the source.

Ian.