Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Hi, > > Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> writes: > >> Why do you want to remove it? It makes absolutely no sense. I am just >> giving access to the windows binary in the source package. I didn't see >> anything in the policy that forbids that, especially if they are not >> packaged in the .debs that are built. >> >> You'll have to make a better case here, otherwise it will stay the way >> it is, as I have no proof of policy violation. > > I did ask on IRC and it seems that including Windows binaries in the > source package is considered non-free at the moment,
Are you 100% sure that's it is not including ONLY the binary? What in the case where we ship also the source code like I did? Would that change if I add the windows source code for OpenSSL (which I think would be quite silly)? > although there is a > proposed GR [1] that suggests to change this (the GR also lists builds > for Windows explicitly as an example). But it doesn't talk about my specific case, where source of the windows code is also present. Just to let you know, I do believe that freeness is very important, and I'm not trying to resist here, but trying to understand and find solution. I'm happy you have sent this report, and now I realize that you might be right (I still have to make sure of it), then find solutions. So, thanks for this BTS entry, and I hope we can continue the discussion until a solution may be found. I really want to keep the windows binary. Maybe there's a way to have it built in Debian? Do you know if there's the necessary tools in the archive? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
