On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 07:22:34PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 18/02/2023 13:33, tomas wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:50:12PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > > > When some application is packaged for Linux distributions it is easier to > > > rebuild it with a custom patch. I suspect that a developer distributing a > > > snap package may use specific and not well documented build environment. > > > > I think this one is a very important point which hasn't been addressed > > yet in this thread: Debian packages provide not only their source, but > > the whole build setup to rebuild that package (and most of them in a > > reproducible [1] way, i.e. they yield bit-for-bit identical binaries > > whenever the sources and the build dependencies stay constant). > > In my opinion reproducible build is a next order problem. I have seen > phrases like "it is too complicated to build". I am in doubts if such > application can still be called free software despite its license. It is > open source, but it is prohibitively difficult to build.
Another interesting aspect of software freedom I've been thinking a lot about the last years: not only the legal freedom is relevant, but also the accessibility, and this has many dimensions, from ease of use (to different kinds of people, so what usually goes by "accessibility" is part of this) to ease of understanding and hacking. There are some hints at this in the GNU GPL (e.g. the sources have to be made available in their "preferred form"), but it goes much further, I think. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
