On 03/12/2014 05:16 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG. >> >> Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one. >> >> >> So this comes down to where the line is, like I said. > > > "As a Debian Developer, I will uphold the DFSG except where it is > inconvenient" ? > > I actually think the DFSG is a great document and we shouldn't just > stray from it because it is inconvenient. > > If I had to disregard the DFSG in some cases, I'd rather see rfc files > in our files than sourceless javascripts. > > /Sune
Oh, let's talk about this! :) I had once a package rejected because the doc contained a logo in PNG format, which had in its header clues that it has been generated. I later on just removed the logo in a +dfsg package... Added benefits to this? In my opinion, the package was just *less* good, it took some of my time, and users don't have an (ugly and generated) logo in the doc, and have instead a broken link in the HTML (cause I had better things to do than to fix this as well...). I think THAT went too far (but I do agree we should get rid of minified javascript files). As Paul wrote it, it's all about where we draw the line. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531fc8e8.5030...@debian.org
