On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:02:31 +0100 Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> wrote:
> Karl Goetz wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was hoping to get some input from this list on whether we should > > be dropping packages containing the 'waf' build system. Its come up > > for discussion in Debian as it appears to be a DFSG violation[1] > > (not our problem), but might also constitute a GPL violation [2]. > > It's a technicality, but I agree that distributing a GPL program that > includes the waf blob without unpacked source is probably a > violation. Luckily it seems easy to fix [1]. Ian seems to disagree this is source, and i tend to agree with him [1]. Its not the preferred form of modification as its built from the git repo and has all comments (and other?) stripped. [1] http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > > Its worth noting not all packages shipping waf are automatically > > problematic (its suggested samba ships the full waf source embedded > > [3]) > > I did a quick search in the samba 3.5.6 package, but couldn't find > anyting about waf. I haven't double checked (yet). > > I'm not sure the best way to get a current list of packages > > embedding waf. An expensive way would be to extract all packages > > and search for it - i can do it , but rather only if needed. > > Can we trust Debian to have done their homework well [2]? Its a filename based list. http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] thanks, kk > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/UnpackWaf > [2] > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[email protected];tag=waf-unpack > -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS) http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
