[please do not CC me] * Ian Jackson <[email protected]> [160711 11:17]: > Marvin Renich writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#817092: Bug#817092: > this browserified"): > > One fundamental purpose... > > I have no idea why you think this is relevant.
I apologize for not changing to subject to make it clear that I am not in disagreement with the general discussion about this bug nor am I in disagreement that the original source used to generate the "browserified" file (along with the program used to generate it) must be in Debian. My point was that I disagreed with the general application of one specific statement made by Jonas. Upon re-reading Jonas' statement, it has become clear to me that he was discussing what Debian is willing to distribute, not what the license says Debian is allowed to distribute. Jonas, I apologize for misconstruing your meaning, and I retract my objection to your statement in this context. This distinction is important, and I should have seen it in that message. My message was triggered by the phrasing of Jonas' statement that was very similar to past discussions over the meaning of "preferred form for modification", especially in the context of the GPL. In these discussions it is sometimes asserted that, for purposes of the GPL and other similar licenses, the phrase must be interpreted in terms of upstream's preferred form. However, neither the GPL itself, nor GNU's published philosophy[1] support this; rather they contradict this interpretation. That part of the GPL is entirely about what a recipient must give to a second level recipient. Nowhere does the GPL mention anything about giving changes back to upstream. ...Marvin [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
