On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:27:35PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> In debian-devel, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> >> (http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/2009-December/005336.html)
> >> and despite all our answers are not giving their conclusion. It is my opinion
> >> that if their conclusion is that the file is non-free, they move the line for
> >> archive acceptance.
> >
> > Indeed, the DFSG does not require inclusion of source code for anything that
> > isn't a program. If the ftp masters are imposing such a requirement,
> > that's a bug which should be addressed by a GR; but there's insufficient
> > evidence to conclude that this is what's happening here. The simpler
> > explanation, given what I've read, is that they're guarding against license
> > violations.
>
> Hm, I am sure that in the past we excluded PDF documentation because
> there was no source for them. Why did we do that?
>
> - Because the PDF was under GPL or GFDL, licenses which explicitly
> requires source distribution? Then it fits into what Steve thinks.
>
> - Because the PDF was under LPPL? I'm not sure whether the LPPL requires
> source - it doesn't do so explicitly, but it always assumes a
> difference between compiled and not-compiled work, and assumes the
> existenc of the not-compiled work.
>
> In this case, it might be that we were just fooled by some license
> zealots and could just have kept the files. The same is true if the
> PDF has some other license that doesn't require source.
I don't know either... maybe it's DFSG?
2 Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.
Don't know if program was interpreted as "everything the damn binary
ships" :)
Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature