On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I don't agree that minified files are a violation of DFSG #2. If the > > library is under the GPL then it would be a problem because it's not the > > preferred form of modification. > > Just because it's not GPL doesn't mean DFSG can be ignored.
Well, minified or not, my point is that it's "code". And DFSG#2 refers to source code not to "preferred form of modification". > > But with more liberal licenses, we should certainly accept that the > > minified files are their own sources much like we accept any other blob of > > data under a free license. For instance we know that almost none of the > > We... don't? > > > firmwares are hand-crafted yet I think we have many firmware under > > DFSG-free licenses (and we adequately pointed out that GPL firmwares were > > not ok). > > And we ship that non-GPL, sourceless firmware in non-free. I stand corrected on this specific example. I don't have any other example to use where "source code" would be involved. We have the case of PDF files without the original document used to generate that PDF but it doesn't really count since DFSG#2 only applies to "source code". Although it would be relevant for the "preferred form of modification" in the case of the GPL. I would be leaning to be less tolerant for minified files of external libraries that have been modified, but in the case of external libraries that are just copied/embedded unmodified, I don't really see the point of it. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111026190026.ga29...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
