Vincent Bernat <> writes:

> [ Unknown signature status ]
>  ❦ 18 octobre 2016 23:01 +0200, Florian Weimer <> :
>>>> I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG
>>>> free.
>>>> I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the
>>>> situation was improved.
>>>> I thought it was clear we believed perl had a DFSG issue, although IRC
>>>> discussion today makes that less clear.
>>>> I don't think the value of having the TC formally say any of those
>>>> specific things is very high.
>>> Please describe the relevant differences between browserified javascript 
>>> and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a DFSG issue but 
>>> the latter probably has not, in a way that I can deduct what the TC 
>>> would believe regarding the similiar problem related to SQLite.
>> Configure in Perl is a build tool, and appears amenable to manual
>> patching.
>> Browserified Javascript is hardly human-editable, and it is shipped as
>> part of built packages.
> I don't think this is the debate. The debate is around pre-minified
> versions. Those versions are also human-editable and amenable to manual
> patching.

I dispute that there was anything like a useful debate, because all
attempts to discover what "browserified" is supposed to mean have been
ignored.  Despite that, this is still the term that continues to be used
to pose the question.

There may have been the appearance of a debate in the TC, but from my
point of view that was mostly pondering what conceivable meaning
"browserified" could have that might lead to one thinking that posing
these questions made any sense whatsoever.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to