On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Dylan Thurston: > > I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this > > point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the > > release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including > > programs, documentation, and miscellaneous files (as in this case), as > > well as everything else, with the sole exception of license files. Is > > my summary correct? > > Artwork seems to be exempt from the need to provide source code, > even if the rendition shipped by Debian is not the version that is > most amenable to modification.
While it may be possible to construct an argument that artwork is exempt from the source requirement,[1] it is in the best interest of our users (and quite definetly the maintainers of the package in question) to have it available, even if it is not actually included in the tar.gz due to size constraints. Assume that it is required, and do your best to get the most prefered form for modification that is theoretically possible to be distributed digitally[2] for everything present in the package made available. [There's just no need to remove a package that doesn't contain it or have it available at this juncture in time.] Don Armstrong 1: I personally haven't been convinced by one of these arguments, but my views on these matters are rather well known. 2: This is just an attempt to forestall people who think that "the prefered form for modification" means that we should be distributing VHS tapes and voice actors. -- Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. 624 (1943) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
