[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> > that complies with the DFSG".
>         Yes. Without that clause, one can say we could ship something
>  like nvidia drivers in main -- since we are legally allowed to do so,
>  even though the license might be very non-free otherwise.  That opens a
>  hole the size of a bus to let non-free code into Debian. That earned it
>  the "overrides the SC" label.

The nvidia drivers have never been in main, and AFAIK no-one claims they
are firmware.

> > But it is surely irrelevant whether the licence text says we can
> > modify the source when the copyright holder is deliberately
> > withholding the source.  (Further, in some cases the licence is GPLv2
> > which requires us to redistribute the source we don't have - though
> > thankfully there are only 1 or 2 such cases left.) 
>         How do you know the author is withholding the source? Yes, I
>  suspect they are, and I doubt that the blobs are the preferred form of
>  modification, but these are judgement calls, not proof. I mean, I have
>  written programs in hex in my time; the hex blob _was_ the source
>  code. One of these programs was even for a radio transmitter on a
>  breadboard. 

But these are already DFSG-compliant and no resolution is required to
say so.

>         All we are doing is is not throwing out code we suspect, but do
>  not know for a certainty, might violate the license it is distributed
>  under. Said license being DFSG free, though.

That's an even greater feat of double-think than is usual around


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: