tags 495935 + help quit On 22 August 2008 at 10:00, Sebastian Harl wrote: | Hi, | | On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 06:03:36PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On 21 August 2008 at 14:40, Sebastian Harl wrote: | > | Package: libgsl0-dev | > | Version: 1.8-2 | > | > Any specific reason you looked at a release that is two years old when we | > have one from this year? | | That's the first version that I could confirm to be affected by this | bug. | | > | The documentation shipped with libgsl [1] is licensed under the GNU Free | > | Documentation License with invariant sections. This is a conflict with | > | the DFSG [2], point 3 (Derived Works), and thus must not be shipped in | > | Debian main. This position has been confirmed in GR 2006-001 [3]. For | > | further information see Manoj's Draft Debian Position Statement about | > | the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) [4]. | > | | > | The documentation is a valid candidate for non-free though. For example, | > | see the gcc-4.3-doc-non-dfsg and gcc-4.3 packages. | > | > What is the minimal changeset I need to apply: | > | > - do I need to split the upstream tarball into two, one blessed and ready for | > main (but free of documentation) and one shunned and to be discarded into | > non-free, or can I proceed with one ? | | The former - you may not ship non-free material in any package, | including source packages, which is available in main nor build non-free | packages from a source package in main. | | > If it is two, do I have to re-create configure etc tools for the | > second package? | | Well, you have to provide some kind of build mechanism. If that's done | by some kind of configure script or as part of debian/rules or whatever | is completely up to you. I don't know how the GSL documentation is | currently being built, so I cannot give you any specific suggestions, | I'm afraid.
I will not have time to work on this, I am afraid. The upstream autoconf mechanism covers everything, and someone will have to properly split this off so that a hypothetical new package gets build in the same consistent way. I have put hours into making the existing package work the way it does. Changing it all over is again several hours worth of work for which I unfortunatetely do no have the bandwidth. And, to be honest, have little motivation to do as I tend to disagree on the issue. [ Yes, I know, GR, and vote etc pp -- but that still left _me_ personally somewhat unconvinced. ] | > - I will serve my users by hiding the documentation from then. | | I agree that this is somewhat unfortunate. However, the same applies for | other non-free parts which might be very useful to the users. It might | just be easier to understand if the license is obviously meant to be | non-free. Please. The upstream guys are professionals, and I have worked with them for a decade. They are as committed to their notion of freedom as you are on yours. On this issue, my thinking is closer to theirs so I am not going to argue this with them. Sorry, Dirk | > Now as non-free is 'not part of Debian' I can't Suggests: or | > Recommends: the docs either, right ? | | A suggestion is fine. | | Cheers, | Sebastian | | -- | Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ | | Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary | Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin | -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
