On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 00:04:16 +0200 Markus Koschany wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 12:19:50 +0200 Francesco Poli > <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: [...] > > DFSG#2 requires the availability of source code. > > > > Hence, distributing the source-less files under a license that does not > > require the availability of source would not solve the issue. > > This is certainly not true for an ogg file which might very well be the > only available source.
If the ogg file were the only existing form for the work, then it would also be source form (by the "preferred form for making modifications" definition of source, which is the definition found in the GNU GPL) and nobody would have been worried about it being GPL-licensed and distributed without making some other form available. In other words, we are not talking about a case where the ogg file is the only existing form. > > > > > The Debian Project must distribute the source (for works included in > > packages in Debian main) anyway, regardless of how permissive is the > > license. > > This is quoted out of context. If game assets like music or images are > shipped under a permissive license, then there is no requirement to ship > some hypothetical "source" as well. There are a lot of artists who reuse > png, bmp, ogg or other media as their primary source material. > > See https://wiki.debian.org/Games/Source for a collection of quotes > regarding this topic, This is a collection of diverse opinions on this topic: it seems that Bas Wijnen and Paul Wise agree with me, while others (including you) disagree with me. > especially the thread on debian-devel and posts like > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00293.html Steve Langasek has expressed opinions like this multiple times, but I am not convinced at all by them. If you follow the thread, you can clearly see that Paul Wise disagrees strongly with Steve Langasek: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00295.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00298.html [...] > > What I expressed is my own opinion on the topic, but it is shared by a > > good number of other people. > > I hope I explained things clearly enough. > > > > Please address this issue in a proper way. > > Thanks for your time. > > Indeed you have expressed your own opinion and some others might agree > but this is _not_ the official stance of the Debian project. Please > carefully read the aforementioned thread on debian-devel > > "https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 > > That GR proposal does not require source for non-programmatic works. It > only "strongly recommends" it, and says explicitly that such source > doesn't have to be in the archive. > > Quote from Russ Albery on debian-devel > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00299.html"; As far as I can tell, this is Russ Allbery's opinion, not the official stance of the Debian Project. It's true that the above-cited GR proposed to affirm that source for non-programmatic works is only "strongly recommended" and not required, but the GR option did not win. Since there was no other option in that GR, we cannot be sure on the reasons why the option did not win: it could be because many people thought that availability of source for non-programmatic works should not even be recommended (as you seem to imply), but it could even be because many people thought that such availability should be required (rather than just recommended). Please note that the FTP Masters seem to require source for at least some non-programmatic works (such as documents): quoting https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html | Source missing | Your package contains files that need source but do not have it. | These include PDF and PS files in the documentation, or | auto-generated files. So in conclusion, I am still convinced that the Debian Project must distribute the source (for works included in packages in Debian main) anyway, regardless of how permissive is the license. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpeT9HGYZOVF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
