Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:02:32PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Thanks for dealing with the bug so fast! >> >> The source package appear to contain the same file: >> >> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.39.orig.tar.gz >> >> e2fsprogs-1.39/doc/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt >> >> Steve Langasek suggested on debian-legal that asking for permission >> from the document authors would be preferable to removing the file. >> According to the file, the authors are Paul J. Leach >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but the >> document suggests others may own the document too: > > It is legal to distribute the source file, so leaving the I-D in the > source should not be an issue. Debian Policy merely says that the > packages must be DFSG compliant, but as far as I know, the controlling > guidelines for the source files are: (1) it is highly desirable that > the file be identical to the upstream, and (2) it must be legal for > our FTP mirrors to distribute. Both conditions are currently > satisified, so I don't see a justification for diverging with the > upstream source file just to remove the I-D.
Hm, interesting. I've seen several maintainers re-package the source code tarball to remove DFSG-nonfree material (mostly GFDL manuals), but I agree that I can't find justification for it in the Debian Policy. I assumed it was common knowledge. There is DFSG #4: 'Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.' http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines That's not completely explicit, but it does suggest that source-code should be modifiable. Some searching reveals the second point in section 2.3 of: http://people.debian.org/~daniel/documents/packaging.html "If the package is intended to be accepted for main, you have to remove every non-free component from the tarball." It probably doesn't carry much weight though, but is indicative. On http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html it is mentioned: "Renaming source for DFSG-removals --- Do not rename the source if you delete files that are not DFSG free." It might carry some more weight, but isn't very informative, and covers a different context. Actually, until now, I haven't looked in source code packages for DFSG-nonfree material, and I should probably find a better reference to why source packages has to be DFSG-free, if that is actually the case at all (I'm not sure on that). I'll ask on debian-legal. Thanks, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
