Enviado desde mi iPhone
I want to thank you for your research and bringing up this issue. From
now I will start looking for those snippets in the software projects
that I'm participating, as I find them worrysome in some particular
cases, indeed.
On 2020/04/23 07:50 AM, vheu...@heuserlawoffice.com wrote:
On 2020/04/23 03:47 AM, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
Many packages include code snippets from, or based on, Stack Overflow answers
[0].
Stack Overflow user-posted content is under CC-BY-SA (the version depending on its age)
[1], which
On 2020/04/23 03:47 AM, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
Many packages include code snippets from, or based on, Stack Overflow answers
[0].
Stack Overflow user-posted content is under CC-BY-SA (the version depending on its age)
[1], which is a libre license but usually not the license these packages
Many packages include code snippets from, or based on, Stack Overflow
answers [0].
Stack Overflow user-posted content is under CC-BY-SA (the version
depending on its age) [1], which is a libre license but usually not the
license these packages claim to be under. Also, attribution is usually
very file in
> >> every package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are,
> >> in fact, 100% Free Oats, this is a task of such size and scope as
> >> to be impractical to accomplish in the short term.
>
> > I think people are underestimating a
ovable material
> of any sort is okay: it is not. We give it a pass when it is
> license-related, like patent-grant letters containing anti-GPL flames,
> but at some point I imagine we'd draw the line even there. Also
> unmodifiable software including interfaces or documentation: no
ti-GPL flames,
but at some point I imagine we'd draw the line even there. Also
unmodifiable software including interfaces or documentation: not okay,
obviously.
The whole idea of "snippets" was that by definition they are
removable. Basically, I was trying to express a bit formally the
kin
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
>
> Um, isn't that precisely what we'r
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 22:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> - the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
>than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
I wouldn't. I'm not aware of any besides in emacs. A quick grep of
/usr/share
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 20:43, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> That is not my position! As I hope you would know. I would never
> close my eyes to a DFSG problem. All our software must be free:
> modifiable etc. That is a given.
>
> The items under discussion are not "software" in the usual sense of
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:43:12 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I
> thought that was what you were saying.
>> You seem to be proposing that we deliberately close our eyes to
>> DFSG problems we may encounter, as long
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight.
>
> Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
> removable "README" file would be a "violation of the social contract",
> while that EXACT SAME PARAGRAPH in a "COPYING"
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:12:02 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
>> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
>> all of it, even when upstream sh
hat they are,
>> in fact, 100% Free Oats, this is a task of such size and scope as
>> to be impractical to accomplish in the short term.
> I think people are underestimating a couple things:
> - the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
>practical ad
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
> all of it, even when upstream ships non-free software (including
> "dingleberries"). I didn't agree to the SC only wh
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
> all of it, even when upstream ships non-free software (including
> "dingleberries"). I didn't agree to the SC only wh
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
Cameron Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... intentionally not upholding the social contract by knowingly
> distributing non-free snippets ...
Let me see if I have this straight.
Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
removable "README
gt; > fact, 100% Free Oats, this is a task of such size and scope as to be
> > impractical to accomplish in the short term.
>
> I think people are underestimating a couple things:
>
> - the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
>practical advantag
On 2003-10-02, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
>than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
In the interests of furthering the discussion, can I suggest limiting
the discus
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 21:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Currently we to my knowledge have one (1) package containing
> "dingleberries", which I will define as materials that we feel
> must be removed for license reasons from the upstream tarball in
> order to make the debian
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:12:25PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
| I think people are underestimating a couple things:
And I think that you are grossly exaggerating what are essentially
non-problems.
| - the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
|practical advantage
impractical to accomplish in the short term.
I think people are underestimating a couple things:
- the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
practical advantage of removing them has been forthcoming. The
best argument made was "translations" but as others have point
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:53:21 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wrote:
>> ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
>> encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
>> my preference.
> Branden Rob
o), so you might find some similarity there. You might
think of snippets a little like that. Those grow-only Changelogs are
generally removable, although I'm not sure if we actually require
that. But the snippets under discussion here are always removable.
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
> > encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
> > my preference.
>
> Branden Robinson &l
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Well this is good. So we'd agree that, as a practical matter, we
> should not file bugs about snippets, not worry about them, not talk
> about them, and just leave snippet-related issues to the discretion of
> i
I wrote:
> ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
> encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
> my preference.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> I fail to see how this [argument] substantially differs from the
; I do agree that history, and precedent, and the practices of others,
> are a weak guide. But we should not ignore them entirely.
>
> In any case, you're trying to put the burden of proof on the "snippets
> are okay" view.
Yes, because that's where it belongs in a
reply to this mail didn't get to my actual
> point.
>
> I think your question here is the wrong way around. These snippets
> are present in the stuff we package. The question is whether
> they're worth removing, not whether they're worth distributing.
Only if I ac
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you can actually point to someplace tha
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> (emphasis mine, of course) you'll notice it refers to the "program".
> So these do not imply that "snippets" in the tarball are under the
> GPL, because they aren't in fact part of t
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> No one has shown any evidence that the interpretation you're drawing
> (in which Debian should laboriously find and purge itself of things
> like a README.why file in which an author quotes heart-rending email
> from his sister wh
ritten by James Hacker.
(emphasis mine, of course) you'll notice it refers to the "program".
So these do not imply that "snippets" in the tarball are under the
GPL, because they aren't in fact part of the program. In other words,
it is not a contradiction to put my c
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
>(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure what
you mean by this
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
e should not ignore them entirely.
In any case, you're trying to put the burden of proof on the "snippets
are okay" view. But you would agree, I hope, that we do have lots of
snippets, and that no one has ever had a problem with or objection to
them before. Since not purging them is c
d explains how this motivated him
to study molecular biology) is widely held within Debian, sensible, or
practical.
Debian has, since day one, included such "snippets". Many upstream
tarballs contain them. The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:06:12PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
> > suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
> > Unless you can actually
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >*** A "snippet" is a file in a source tarball which:
>
> Oooh, ooh, can we put xroach back in as a snipet? Its not technical ---
> its a small toy --- and its not free (as we found out years after we
> started distributing it
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:59:38AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You gave the "lemmings" argument (everyone else does X, so so should
> we). He pointed out that in certain circumstances where everyone else
> ignores non-freeness X, we don't.
Which, incidentally, is one major reason I use De
his denies to a user who has modified such a font in order
to improve the function of his computer the right to help his friends
improve their displays as well.
No such problems occur with "snippets."
It appears to me that you've arbitrarily decided this. The license on
the GNU Ma
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 21:35 US/Eastern, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
(1) Allowing snippets to be included is the current Debian practice,
so the burden of proof is on those who would propose to remove them
to show a compelling reason for doing so.
I propose that a compelling reason is the
> What are the advantages of removing them?
>
> - We save some bytes in the archive.
Minor point.
> - If a snippet turns out to be problematic, we won't have to spend effort
> on removing it because we already spent that effort.
> - We might convince some authors to wr
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
> term "begging the question" as used in the study of logic and
> discourse.
>
> I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
> the con
reply to this mail didn't get to my actual point.
>
> I think your question here is the wrong way around. These snippets are
> present in the stuff we package. The question is whether they're worth
> removing, not whether they're worth distributing.
>
> What a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 29 September 2003 03:35, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
> Generally we decide that something
hink my first reply to this mail didn't get to my actual point.
>
> I think your question here is the wrong way around. These snippets are
> present in the stuff we package. The question is whether they're worth
> removing, not whether they're worth distributing.
>
&
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you can actually point to
tion here is the wrong way around. These snippets are
present in the stuff we package. The question is whether they're worth
removing, not whether they're worth distributing.
What are the advantages of keeping them?
- The time and effort that would be spent on locating and remov
a particular snippet, for example?
> Let's split the question in two:
>
> * Should snippets be unmodifiable? Does it serve any purpose for the
> community?
There's first the question of whether modifiable snippets are an option.
I'd like to have some more examples than t
Mathieu Roy said:
> But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual,
> which clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is
> provided?
You have an example of a dual-licensed work.
You can distribute the manifesto under the "No modification" license, or at
your opt
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Allowing snippets to be included is the current Debian practice,
> so the burden of proof is on those who would propose to remove them
> to show a compelling reason for do
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> >> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
> >> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
> >> because they would not be able to translate the GNU
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
>> because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which
>> does not yet have an official trans
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-29, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> > included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
>
> OK,
On 2003-09-29, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
completely localised
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
> the concept by giving us such a clear example.
This is a factually incorrect non sequitur.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:23:08PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
>
> You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
> explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
> felt that ... and so he
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm much more interested in the arguments why it's a good idea in the
> first place to include the snippets than in these arguments about how
> much work it would be to remove the unmodifiable snippets.
Fair enough.
(1
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > - No other free software organization eschews such snippets.
>>
>> I disagree with the premises of those two, as well. For instance: no
>> other free software organization edits out the non-free
> > - Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
> > - This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
> > - Scanning our sources for them would be a gargantuan undertaking.
> > - They'd keep sneaking back in.
>
> All of these apply t
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty
e technical material it accompanies
> ***
> *** (Good examples of such snippets are historic or humorous emails
> *** and usenet posts, political essays, jokes, and the like.)
I think this is a good definition, and I also see no reason to remove
these. I've never minded their prese
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty days and forty nights witho
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
About the "README" offer you allude to, do you really think an
upstream author's statement:
Copyright blah blah blah ...
Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary programs
are available from the author for $10,00
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About the "README" offer you allude to, do you really think an
> upstream author's statement:
>
> Copyright blah blah blah ...
>
> Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
>
> Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary prog
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we decide to go on a crusade against them, it would be a really big
> deal for a couple reasons:
>
> - Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
> - This is because upstream tarballs are abso
In my very first message on this subject I stated (in their
definition) that snippets were "usually unmodifiable." I gave
specific examples whose modifiability is easy enough to determine:
$ head -7 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Found
bout a GPLed program and
statements in a README it included. If you want these to be unmodifiable, you
will need to give it or both a different license. My point was that if these
snippets are distributed under the GPL, which I thought you were saying,
there is no controversy.
> Again, I was
A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
term "begging the question" as used in the study of logic and
discourse.
I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
the concept by giving us such a clear example.
status is not
hidden. Most Debian developers (excepting those unfortunate vi
knuckle-dragger in our midst) know that it can be found down in the
gizzards of the emacs support files. But Debian is full of snippets,
and no one has ever raised them as an issue before. The burden of
proof is really o
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
> gargantuan task.
And yet at the same time you claim that the inclusion of any particular
such "snippet" was a fully conscious decision made at the
d to remove such
> texts.
You seem to be having trouble following this.
Again, I was referring to unmodifiable but removable snippets. Like a
copy of the heart-rending email from his cancer-stricken sister that
inspired an upstream author to study molecular biology, work on
colon-cancer
standing, and heretofore
> uncontroversial, accepted Debian practice.
That statement applies equally to a wide range of similar bugs. That
does not mean they should not be fixed.
> The Debian ftpmasters
> are doubtless quite aware of such snippets, and have no problems with
> them.
That's a ve
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:05PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
> > need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
> > wonfix, or more likely, close it.
is is not a matter of belief. This is longstanding, and heretofore
> uncontroversial, accepted Debian practice. The GNU manifesto is in
> Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
> and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs. The Debian ftpmasters
> are doubtless q
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 15:48, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> (2) I *did* include concrete examples of snippets under a different
> license than the package which includes them.
> $ head -10 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
#207932
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> The GNU manifesto is in
>Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
>and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs.
And how precisely does it belong there? That's a stupid, obscure location.
:-)
(OK, perhaps you meant "Whereever upstream p
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (using an expired key) writes:
> > Do you believe
> > unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with
> > the DFSG as they stand?
>
> This is not a ma
"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
>
> > In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
> > that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
> > Debian packages:
>
> If Debian d
ngstanding, and heretofore
uncontroversial, accepted Debian practice. The GNU manifesto is in
Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs. The Debian ftpmasters
are doubtless quite aware of such snippets, and have no prob
h statements have never been removed! Even
> though Debian might find such an offer repulsive, we respect our
> upstream authors enough to include them.
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
> Peopl
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
> need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
> wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
debia
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
>
> rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said "Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets" I did not mean to imply th
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless
> snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional,
> are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not
> constitute an integral p
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
>
> rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said "Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets" I did not mean to imply th
gh IANADD, so
> you don't need to convince me).
Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless snippets
which are informative and interesting, are not functional, are
*removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not constitute an
integral part of it. By long-st
> Please do not attempt to make the "Debian has no principles but the
> DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has
> no principles and can do anything" argument, because it's nonsense.
Okay. I didn't make that argument, but as you request I will not make
it in the future
nce such a "snippet" is *by definition* removable.
(2) I *did* include concrete examples of snippets under a different
license than the package which includes them.
$ head -10 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
ss that distro, I would never have
> turned to Debian. Please consider this fact while those packages /
> docs are being moved out to non-free.
You are talking about an unlikely situation (that such a distro would
gain huge market share) versus real concerns.
> > Debian does requi
t this is what
RMS wants to prevent.
> includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right
> now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6
> (which is of questionable taste), GNU, CENSORSHIP (which is dated into
> such irrelevance that its
source we distribute, but includes such snippets in the binaries,
> typically in ...-doc.deb. One example of this is GNU Emacs, which
> includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right
> now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6
> (which i
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a
> > /modifiable/ one would most likely be.
>
> is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the
> DFSG. Such an overly-lite
my responses to RMS on this issue, I have repeatedly
stated that we in general do not modify or delete portions of packages
unless we have to.
>> A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a
>> /modifiable/ one would most likely be.
>
> is a load of hooey. Inclusion
hings, but out of respect for our upstream authors we don't.
As a last example, many source tarballs include "snippets", defined as
follows.
*** BY MY DEFINITION:
***
*** A "snippet" is a file in a source tarball which:
***
*** - merely accompanies and is not an integral
97 matches
Mail list logo
