Il giorno mer 19 giu 2024 alle ore 19:03 Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> ha scritto: > > Speaking for myself, I believe the source is "the set of files that > > are required in order to build the package", > > Well, *that's* certainly not sufficient. Because intermediate build > products like minified js or whatever, might be sufficient to build > the package.
Yes, sure. I should have written "the set of *source* files" (plus build scripts etc.). Sorry for the confusion. > I should be clear that I thiknk there is room for reasonable > disagreement on this, particularly since the question is so > context-dependent. Agreed. > [the rest of your message] Overall, you make some very valid points. But if the concept that "the history is the source" were really upheld and taken to its consequences, it might disrupt the whole free software ecosystem. Because, then, every upstream of a GPL project who develops on a private VCS (or without using a VCS) and only releases tarballs would be violating the GPL, and nobody could distribute binary packages because they couldn't provide the "complete corresponding source code". And since Debian currently distributes only the current version in its source packages, Debian would be in violation too. And tag2upload isn't a step towards fixing that, because (as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong) it too builds packages that only contain the current version. Furthermore, there's another issue regarding the freeness of the package: if the source must include the history, then you aren't actually completely free to modify the source, because you can't delete the history. The history behaves like an "invariant section" of the GFDL. I remember that the project voted that GFDL-with-invariant-sections is non-free. While if you allow for deleting the history, that's the same as saying that you are only required to provide the current version. Gerardo
