Re: Moodle package update request
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> wrote:
> On 08/16/2010 12:22 AM, Tomasz Muras wrote:
>>
>> Two of the .swf files don't have the source code, so I understand
>> that they would have to go to non-free (if packaged at all). Other
>> would have to go to contrib, as they can't be build with anything
>> that is available in Debian unstable currently - and I don't want
>> Moodle to be moved to contrib. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> About repackaging the source - I'm actually a bit lost here. Do you
>> know if I *should* repackage them (and also add -dfsg) if the .swf
>> files are non-free?
>>
>
> There are three simple cases:
>
> 1) The license of the files is non-free → repackaging + add "dfsg" in
> the version.
> 2) The license of the files is suitable for main but .swf cannot be built
> from source → just remove them as you did.
> 3) You don't know exactly the license of the files or you are not sure →
> ask upstream.
>
> The reason behind removing non-free files from "main" is that we don't have
> enough rights on them to get them in them. It's pretty simple. And, not
> being able to build them from source doesn't make them non-free. It
> depends on the license, not how you make them.
So this is case 2) for me. But now the problem I'm facing is that I've
added "dfsg" already, so I can't go back to the numbering without it!
I understand that what I did: removing .swf in rules and adding "dfsg"
didn't make too much of a sense. Maybe the cleanest way out of it now
is to remove .swf from source package? I want to package them
separately anyway in contrib (and one possibly in non-free).
Thanks for you help,
Tomek
Reply to: