Hi, Thank you Ian and Dmitry for the feedback,
On lundi 19 février 2018 15:07:18 GMT Ian Jackson wrote: > Thomas Preud'homme writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?"): > > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are: > > > > - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok? > > - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3? > > I think there is no legal problem. The questions are of ethics. > > AFAICT from what you are saying: > > The "ultimate" build is somehow superior. > > The upstream authors have granted legal permission by using the GPLv3, > to disable the licence check. I guess that they would prefer users of > the "ultimate" build to pay them or something; this is probably mostly > "enforced" by providing users pre-built binaries, and hoping that > no-one will ship non-licence-enforcing binaries. Yes, that's their strategy from what I can see. I guess the average Windows user is less likely to compile a software from source to have a custom build. > > So I don't think there is any _legal_ problem with any of the options > you are considering. > > > Feature wise, the ultimate edition seems to only differ in the > > license check, message with the version being embedded the word > > "ultimate" and the absence of the following text in the UI: "Buy the > > Ultimate version to fund development". The ultimate build seems to > > be limited to Mac OS and Windows only, ie it does not build on Linux > > but that's only because of a macro check. It could trivially be > > disabled. > > I think there is nothing very objectionable about that UI text, > provided it's not too intrusive. Indeed, GNU programs print > self-advertisements too (not asking for money, so that's perhaps a bit > different, but the same principle applies). I'm yet to find where it is in the UI so I guess that's quite discreet :-) > > If the extra UI is an annoying nag then there should be a way to > disable it but IMO you can leave it enabled by default. > > > Given the differences mentionned above, I prefer to just use a non > > ultimate > > build. The only difference except version number in some help string is to > > encourage users to contribute to its development by telling them to buy > > the > > ultimate edition. They are free not to do it so I think that respects the > > DFSG. > > Yes. > > So, there is no problem, I think. > > Personally, I would not simply disable the UI nag, even though we have > legal permission to do so. Upstream would probably find it annoying. Agreed. > > OTOH if there are actual _features_ in the "ultimate" version that > aren't in the standard version, they should be enabled in the Debian > package. It is OK for a Debian package to promote, to a limited > extent, the reasonable agenda of its upstreams - but we should not be > shipping crippleware. There is no extra feature. I've uploaded the non ultimate build given the general consensus here. Best regards, Thomas
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.