Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:51:23PM -0300, Yao Wei wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:49:24AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > ##################
> > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> > the actual form for modification. There are many such ways -- unless you
> > distribute the software in highly unusual circumstances, a link to a
> > network server suffices; see the text of the GPL for further details.
> > ##################
>
> I believe transporting whole VCS directory in a tarball is a viable
> workaround
Ie, the 3.0 (git) format.
> though I would argue that expensive data transport (like 4G,
> satellite network, etc.) is not highly unusual.
Using real git (rather than a hack to emulate the old scheme) you can do a
shallow clone.
Tunnelling git repos inside tarballs is useful only in rare (yet important)
cases like a desert island, an oppressive country, an air-gapped facility,
an interstellar spaceship, etc. And once tunnelled, git will works
awesomely within that disconnected from us network. Including merging back
once connected again. That's not something a flat tarball can do.
> Also, if upstream interpret the clause as "the actual place for making
> modification", it could violate dissident test.
I'm talking about format, not place. Git is explicitly a _distributed_ VCS,
meant to solve this very problem.
And mandating git specifically would be non-free, as it'd forbid migrating
to a future better scheme, or an alternative (Hg, Pijul). Thus, I propose
opt-in banning only a particular obsolete way to convey processed sources.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian is one big family. Including that weird uncle
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ and ultra-religious in-laws.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: