On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:51:23PM -0300, Yao Wei wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:49:24AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > ################## > > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification. > > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain > > the actual form for modification. There are many such ways -- unless you > > distribute the software in highly unusual circumstances, a link to a > > network server suffices; see the text of the GPL for further details. > > ################## > > I believe transporting whole VCS directory in a tarball is a viable > workaround
Ie, the 3.0 (git) format. > though I would argue that expensive data transport (like 4G, > satellite network, etc.) is not highly unusual. Using real git (rather than a hack to emulate the old scheme) you can do a shallow clone. Tunnelling git repos inside tarballs is useful only in rare (yet important) cases like a desert island, an oppressive country, an air-gapped facility, an interstellar spaceship, etc. And once tunnelled, git will works awesomely within that disconnected from us network. Including merging back once connected again. That's not something a flat tarball can do. > Also, if upstream interpret the clause as "the actual place for making > modification", it could violate dissident test. I'm talking about format, not place. Git is explicitly a _distributed_ VCS, meant to solve this very problem. And mandating git specifically would be non-free, as it'd forbid migrating to a future better scheme, or an alternative (Hg, Pijul). Thus, I propose opt-in banning only a particular obsolete way to convey processed sources. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian is one big family. Including that weird uncle ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ and ultra-religious in-laws. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
