On re-reading the sequence of events, it looks like I was the one who switched the context of the hypothetical "reproducible build tools" obligation from GPL to LGPL. Bruce, my apologies for implying that you were the one who switched contexts. So we seem to agree that the support for this requirement isn't adequate in the GPL (which I consider to be a flaw in the GPL).
I think the support is adequate in the LGPL, as my most recent e-mail elaborates. Presumably that's what is really at issue (at a strictly legal level) in the LCC; proprietary applications don't usually link against GPL libraries, since most ISVs consider the GPL likely to be enforceable. For code under other licenses, I have to fall back on the DFSG to contend that Debian shouldn't encourage efforts to standardize binaries. I find arguments from the Social Contract and hypothetical benefits to users unpersuasive. Cheers, - Michael
