On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:38:45AM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:03PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > >> I have a package that has an optional part that cannot presently be > >> built in main but ships a (java bytecode) binary in the tarball. > >> Policy prevents me from adding this to the binary debs, but my > >> understanding of policy is that I can keep it in the orig.tar.gz for the > >> sake of using an unchanged upstream tarball. > >> Is this correct? > > > >It depends on what the licence terms are for the binary. If that licence is > >DFSG-free, and you are complying with the licence without distributing the > >source (ie it's not a GPL-like "must give source" licence) then there's no > >problem. Debian can comply with that licence in it's current form, and can > >distribute the source package to it's mirrors and users without fear. > > Well, the license is GPL and there is source and binary included in the tarball, so > licensewise this doesn't seem to be a problem, neither with legal distribution under > the license nor with respect to DFSG. The only problem is that the source cannot be > recompiled without additional tools (e.g. ant). > > >I would urge you to sanitise your tarballs. It's a PITA to do (and note in > >the documentation), but it's the safest course of action for our users. > > Well, if you think that's best, that is what I'll be doing.
No, I misunderstood "cannot presently be built in main" to mean "not licenced for main". Stuff that isn't built can live in the tarball without a problem, but yes, you can't put the pre-built binary into the packages. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
