On Monday, August 24, 2026 8:39:19 AM Mountain Standard Time Russ Allbery wrote: > Otto Kekäläinen <[email protected]> writes: > > Somewhat of a tangent, but I think it is already pretty well established > > that hosting a copy of upstream git on salsa.debian.org is acceptable, > > regardless of what files upstream has in their git HEAD or history. Only > > the stuff we upload to Debian archives is what we consider > > "redistribution". > > I agree that this is what people tend to do, but legally this feels like > utter nonsense, so I'm worried that eventually we will be bitten by that. > I cannot imagine any reasonable legal interpretation of the term under > which Debian making the code available via Git from Salsa does not > constitute redistribution. > > If the problem is only DFSG issues, then the law presumably doesn't care > if we're breaking our own rules. We can just say that the DFSG is ignored > for things hosted on Salsa, I guess, and that stance does have a lot of > practical benefits and probably not a lot of meaningful downsides. > > But if the files really aren't legally redistributable by Debian at all, > or if Salsa violates some terms of the license, making them available on > Salsa is just as much redistribution as mirroring upstream's tarball > distribution point would be.
I agree with Russ’s interpretation. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
