On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:18:41 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> writes: > > > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > >> Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> writes: > > Are you 100% sure that's it is not including ONLY the binary? What in > > the case where we ship also the source code like I did? Would that > > change if I add the windows source code for OpenSSL (which I think would > > be quite silly)? > > Yes, the problem is that it is not possible to make sure the source code > belongs to the included binary. > > >> although there is a > >> proposed GR [1] that suggests to change this (the GR also lists builds > >> for Windows explicitly as an example). > > > > But it doesn't talk about my specific case, where source of the windows > > code is also present. > > It does. It mentions a build for Windows of the same program that will > be included in Debian. In that case the source code for the program is > present. > > > Just to let you know, I do believe that freeness is very important, and > > I'm not trying to resist here, but trying to understand and find > > solution. I'm happy you have sent this report, and now I realize that > > you might be right (I still have to make sure of it), then find > > solutions. So, thanks for this BTS entry, and I hope we can continue the > > discussion until a solution may be found. I really want to keep the > > windows binary. Maybe there's a way to have it built in Debian? Do you > > know if there's the necessary tools in the archive? > > I don't see any use for the Windows binaries in the source archive as it > is not included in any binary package and thus not readily available to > users anyway. As it is intended for Windows users in any case, why not > just include a link to an alternative download location? > Any progress on this?
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
