Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:49:28PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 2) I think that the Debian operating system is defined by the interaction of
> > its binary version and the source files necessary to use, study, modifiy and
> > redistribute it. Non-DFSG-free files that happen to be codistributed with the
> > source of the Debian operating system but have no function at all are not part
> > of the system, and I would like maintainers to be allowed to keep these files
> > in the original upstream material if it simplifies their work.
> Would that include files which we are not allowed to distribute (for whatever
> reason)? Do you think that the number of packages where the source had to be
> repackages is high enough to warrant a change of the DFSG?
I think that we must not redistribute files that we are not allowed to
redistribute, be they part of our operating system or not.
I do not propose to change the DFSG, as it it relevant to the Debian operating
system only, not to everything that the Debian project distributes (otherwise, we
would not have a non-free section).
I think that if a file that has no function in our operating system happens to
be co-distributed on our source medias, like a RFC, a PDF file for which
upstream forgot to provide its LaTeX source or a windows executable, our
operating system is still DFSG-free.
I use “More fun” in the title of my platform. DFSG-repacking is not fun. It
provides no extra freedom, creates nothing, and syphons time and motivation (at
I think that developers who do not go through NEW every month do not realise
how long we spend repacking and cut-pasting coypright notices. In the meantime,
other distributions innovate. One of my main motivations to stand up for DPL is
that we remove all the barriers that contribute to Debian's immobilism. The
copyright collection and tarball repacking are, in my opinion, one of them.
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan