On January 2, 2017 11:17:43 AM EST, Steve Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 1, 2017 2:29:37 AM CST you wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 01, 2017 12:59:08 AM Steve Robbins wrote:
>> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 10:06:37 PM CST you wrote:
>
>> > No part of the resulting binary package comes from files that are
>not in
>> > their intended form of modification.  I acknowledge there are extra
>> > non-source files in the source tarball *that are not used* to
>create the
>> > binary.
>> 
>> Speaking as a member of the FTP team, the source needs to be DFSG
>free to be
>> in Main.  Regardless of if it's used in the binary.
>
>To take that position, you need to redefine "source" as essentially any
>file in 
>the upstream tarball, regardless of whether it is used to produce the
>binary 
>packages.   I think most people -- myself included -- would equate
>"source" 
>with "files that are used to produce the binary distribution" (and, for
>
>avoidance of doubt, this includes config files, doc files used to
>produce -doc 
>packages, etc).
>
>Taking your stronger view requires creating a debian-specific "source"
>tarball 
>that pragmatically gains no extra freedom for the users. 
>
>Moreover I don't find that definition in the DFSG, which says only
>that: "The 
>program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
>code 
>as well as compiled form."
>
>> > > In some cases this could also constitute a license violation for
>some
>> > > copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. (While sometimes the
>licence
>> > > allows not to ship the source, the DFSG always mandates source
>code.)
>> > 
>> > It requires all sources required to create the binary.  Digikam
>meets this
>> > test.
>> 
>> No.  It doesn't.  This is a valid bug and one that's not hard to fix.
>
>The GPL defines  “source code” as "the preferred form of the work for
>making 
>modifications to it."   The requirement is that if you provide a
>covered work, 
>you must also provide the source.  There is no restriction in the GPL
>that 
>forbids extraneous non-source files from being provided in the same
>tarball.  
>So, yes: Debian's Digikam meets the GPL requirements.

I never said it wasn't GPL compliant.

What I am giving you is the FTP team position on DFSG as it relates to source 
packages.  As it stands, the source package contains sourceless binary code and 
that is specifically not allowed in Main.  The fact that Debian is distributing 
it in a part of the main archive called source doesn't remove the requirement 
to provide source (i.e. preferred form for modification).

We've also specifically considered minified JavaScript and determined it is not 
the source for DFSG purposes.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

Reply via email to