On 10.10.2016 23:54, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > So in conclusion, I am still convinced that the Debian Project must > distribute the source (for works included in packages in Debian main) > anyway, regardless of how permissive is the license.
I have commented on this bug report because I feel that both you and the original bug reporter don't represent all of Debian (you are not even a Debian developer but you act like one on debian-legal) and I dispute the severity of this bug report. You said: DFSG#2 requires the availability of source code. That is correct. But an ogg file is not a program. We are not required to ship a "source" for it, especially if we don't know how the actually source format looks like. There are many authors and content providers who license their artwork under the GPL but they don't release some other (higher) form of this artwork. Granted, the GPL is a poor choice for licensing artwork but it does not make it unsuitable for Debian if the original author decides to provide her artwork in a lossy data format. Coming back to the actual issue at hand: If files have been wrongly credited, then this issue should be fixed. However there is no requirement to provide some kind of "source" if it doesn't exist. If there is some kind of "source" that still exists for the GPL licensed files, please include it in the source tarball (because it would be the easiest solution for this bug report). If this situation is impossible to resolve, please get in touch with me again (@maintainer). Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
