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

Re: what should the DFSG apply to?

Hi Paul,

Slightly re-arranging the question order, if that's ok.

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Please share your thoughts on the SC and DFSG, in particular:
> Which items of the DFSG should apply to which types of works?
> How do you currently determine which files in upstream source packages
> are "source" and which are not?

I take the following principle:
If I install a package, and don't like either how it works, or how it
looks, can I change it myself?
In the case of a minified .js file for example, without other source, I
technically *can*, but it would make my brain leak out of my ears to do
so. Thus for me personally, it's not the preferred form of modification.

However, we should also consider if there's an alternative. If the
preferred form of modification has been lost in the mists of time, then
it's quite possible to describe the resultant file as now the defacto
form of modification.

> How do you currently apply the DFSG wrt your Debian packaging work?
> How do you currently deal with upstream source packages that include
> generated files instead of creating them at build time?

Speaking in general, as I've managed to give away or remove all my
packages that I directly maintain myself, I would remove them from the
source package.

> Would you initiate or support a GR to replace uses of the words
> "program" and "software" in the DFSG with "work" where appropriate?

I probably wouldn't initiate one, I don't think that this is currently
the biggest blocking issue facing the project, and would rather avoid
another lengthy debate on the topic. However, I would probably support
it if one was proposed, at least so that we can get closure on the


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: