On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 21:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Julien Cristau wrote: > > 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".
It also doesn't define "source" (or "code", for that matter, hence several attempts in the past to clarify the language). My understanding has always been that, for want of a better definition and in the absence of anything more formal, Debian has basically treated the two terms as interchangeable. See #383465 for instance; the old nv driver definitely wasn't GPLed. (Yes, it's not a great example, but it also doesn't involve interminable threads on debian-legal). > 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". The FTP team certainly appear to be of the opinion that it's a serious enough issue to make a package unacceptable for the archive - see the penultimate entry in the "direct reject" table on http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Regards, Adam -- 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/1319658490.11486.7.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
