Howdy Jerome, Thank you for discussing this issue of software freedom.
Jerome BENOIT <calcu...@rezozer.net> writes: > One of the package that I Intend To Package, libgap-sage not to > mention it [1], contains source files that are basically > transformation of source files from an other software, gap as you have > likely guessed it: grossly, a prefix (libGAP_) is prepended to each > variable/function name. Judging by that description, there is clearly a source form of the work (the ‘gap’ software) using a build process. To be free software, IMO the build process needs to also be available in full to every recipient. So, if a transformation is done, that transformation needs to be automated (maybe a script, or an existing build tool *and* configuration for that build tool), and these specific scripts and configuration constitute part of the source form of ‘libgap-sage’. > I am uncomfortable here because the files are transformed, but no > mention of it is done in their headers. For the purposes of the Debian project, it should be enough to clearly document the provenance of the work and to collect all the files that constitute source (including build scripts and configuration). > My first submission to ftpmaster was rejected because the copyright of > these files as it appears in theirs untouched header was not mention. Which source package in Debian will constitute the source form of this work? That package is the proper place to document copyright information for that source, IMO. So it depends on what is really the source form of this work, and what source package(s) are involved. -- \ “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access | `\ to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet | _o__) highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor | Ben Finney
