Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> There are existing packages for which I consider the PFM to include
> the git history. I'm not pressing this point from a legal point of
> view because, well, that just generates lots of heat and no light.
> I think that we should address this potential problem by arranging to
> give to the history to our users and downstreams. There are lots of
> other really good reasons to do this.
Since I was arguing in another branch of the thread that I didn't think
trying to use the GPL clause to force this made sense, I want to say here
that I completely agree with this: we should make the VCS history readily
available. There are tons of good reasons to do so, one of which is that
it empowers our users to understand and change the software that we
distribute.
I don't think it's productive to try to force the matter legally, but I
think it's a good place to exert effort technically.
I'm dubious that the Debian archive is the best place from which to
distribute full VCS histories for boring technical reasons, but I'm
already convinced that we should be building on the dgit machinery as the
future of how packages will be maintained and uploaded, which also
provides an obvious place from which to make that history available.
> This boat already sailed a long time ago. Via alioth and now salsa, and
> via the dgit git server, we are in many cases distributing that complete
> history already.
I think it does make a (minor) difference that we're not encouraging third
parties to trust us that it is legally fine to put that material on CDs,
sell them, etc. The practical risk bar is lower when the material is only
on services that we fully control and therefore for which we can easily
respond to cease-and-desist letters with merit, etc., and other people
aren't trusting our license statements about that material.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: