Andrew Suffield writes: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > Requiring layered formats for > > > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases. > > > > > > This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source > > > does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source is what > > > makes programs non-free. The contents of the Debian archive is not > > > non-free just because we require source. > > > > Who is being a mindless sophist? > > People who scream every time we find a package with missing source, > because obviously it's impossible that any such package could ever be > distributed with source, and so by finding them we're making them > non-free.
That would be an interesting argument if there were no reasonable basis to disagree about what "source code" means in the context of a JPEG. The point of my mail was that there often is no clear (or usable or freely manipulable; the relevant metric may vary) "source code" version of a lossily compressed image. > It gets really tiresome. Like the people who blame bug reporters, as > if the bug didn't exist before it was reported. Reporting something as an RC bug when others think it is a wishlist item is objectionable. > > Take, for example, > > /usr/share/doc/doc-iana/cctld/jp/sakamoto-sig.jpg from doc-iana, > > currently in main. It is a JPEG of a signature. We cannot distribute > > Sakamoto-san. The image was produced in Photoshop, which means there > > may not be a precursor file that is freely manipulable. What is > > source? > > <snip rest of examples> > > Wrong part of the thread, we've been here already. This is not > directly relevant. What part of requiring layered formats for images makes it irrelevant that there is no layered format "source" for certain images? > > > In most cases, requiring layered formats for source is going to result > > > in getting layered formats for source. It is obviously the correct > > > thing to be distributing; upstreams who have it but don't distribute > > > it probably just didn't think of it. > > > > In a significant number of cases, requiring layered formats for source > > will mean that DDs must create DFSG-sanitized "orig" tarballs by > > removing images that upstream distributes. > > Or by adding images that upstream did not distribute. You're doing it > as well. "Delete it" is *not* the only possible answer to a buggy > package. Stop pretending that it is. "Delete it" *is* the only option for DFSG-incompatible files, although a patch may later substitute a file that satisfies your whims. If your interpretation is taken, the package maintainer would have to create a new version of the source tarball. This happens with many source packages already; XFree86, Linux and some GFDL-documented packages are examples. If an upstream-distributed file fails DFSG tests -- for being source code or for freedom to modify -- it must be excised from the orig tarball that becomes part of Debian. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
