On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Mehdi Dogguy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/16/2010 12:22 AM, Tomasz Muras wrote: >> >> Two of the .swf files don't have the source code, so I understand >> that they would have to go to non-free (if packaged at all). Other >> would have to go to contrib, as they can't be build with anything >> that is available in Debian unstable currently - and I don't want >> Moodle to be moved to contrib. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> About repackaging the source - I'm actually a bit lost here. Do you >> know if I *should* repackage them (and also add -dfsg) if the .swf >> files are non-free? >> > > There are three simple cases: > > 1) The license of the files is non-free → repackaging + add "dfsg" in > the version. > 2) The license of the files is suitable for main but .swf cannot be built > from source → just remove them as you did. > 3) You don't know exactly the license of the files or you are not sure → > ask upstream. > > The reason behind removing non-free files from "main" is that we don't have > enough rights on them to get them in them. It's pretty simple. And, not > being able to build them from source doesn't make them non-free. It > depends on the license, not how you make them.
So this is case 2) for me. But now the problem I'm facing is that I've added "dfsg" already, so I can't go back to the numbering without it! I understand that what I did: removing .swf in rules and adding "dfsg" didn't make too much of a sense. Maybe the cleanest way out of it now is to remove .swf from source package? I want to package them separately anyway in contrib (and one possibly in non-free). Thanks for you help, Tomek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
