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

Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:47:09AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:42:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > 
> > On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
> > source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
> > something in upstream tarball is non-free, I believe we should do
> > repacking (there, we might use a bit more standardization on how we
> > implement get-orig-source in such cases, but that's a different
> > issue). In fact, doing that might even be a way to push our upstream to
> > get rid of those non-free bits from their tarballs as well.
> Hi Stefano,
> I explained in my GR proposition what led me to conclude that not everything
> in the original archives distributed usptream is a source for Debian. Let's
> take a non-free RFC for example, that is not distributed in a binary package
> and is not touched at build time. Why do you think it is part of the source
> of the Debian operating system?

Because it's in the source. If you do a 'find $source -iname '*rfc*',
you will find it (unless the file has a silly name).

More importantly, leaving files in the source package that must not be
in the binary package increases the risk that a future NMU'er might miss
the fact that this file is non-free and remove a --disable-foo option
from the configure line in debian/rules, or something similar, thereby
making the package in breach of the DFSG.

I agree that it's a lot of work that might seem pointless and is not
fun. But nobody ever said that working on Debian was going to be fun
*all* the time.

The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: