Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
>> "Our users" includes not only an individual with a single computer who
>> never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
>> organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
>> modify the source for their own purposes.
> Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild our
> system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
> or a binary program that is aimed at run on a Windows system. I conclude that
> that kind of file, although present in our source packages, are not part of the
> source of our operating system.
*cough* (My first thought was *WAYS* more impolite.)
So, you want to make Debian unfit to be distributed by anyone. You
seriously consider distributing undistributable files just because you
are too lazy to do your maintainers work. You seriously want to put all
our mirrors, all or CD distributors AND ALL OUR USERS at risk to break
laws and maybe get sued (some of our users definitely are large enough
to be a nice target for law trolls), just because you fucking dont want
to do the work?
> I think that we should have the possibility to redistribute a bit-identical
> upstream archive when possible.
Thats possible whenever upstream has fixed his tarball to not include
non-free bits.
> repacked tarballes, we can do with pristine ones. If we do not trust
> each other that a couple of useless non-DFSG-free files can be
> ignored, what else can't we trust ?
You.
--
bye, Joerg
You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like a woman. You just have
to read the manual and press the right buttons.
Reply to: