Dmitrijs Ledkovs <dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com> writes: > 2. If tarball is not redistributable
> It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable I think people are missing the degree of complexity in this. For instance, files included the source tarball that aren't used by the Debian build but are under a "no commercial use" license would mean that the Debian source packages can no longer be distributed by a commercial CD or DVD retailer. Binaries containing encryption code that can't be rebuilt from the sources in the source package, even if never used in Debian, suddenly potentially run afoul of US crypto export requirements. Etc. I suspect the original motivation is really limited just to files that are DFSG-compatible except for limitations on specific types of derivative works that don't involve commercial use, such as GFDL documents with invariant sections or IETF RFCs. But I think drawing a line around just that case, even if we all agreed it was desirable to do so, is harder than it looks. We did talk about this during http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, I believe. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k4t2o82f....@windlord.stanford.edu