On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:11:34 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > > > What is the preferred form for modification for a work (aka source) is
> > > > highly context-dependent.
> > >
> > > I share entirely the opinion of Russ who replied to this specific poin
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > > What is the preferred form for modification for a work (aka source) is
> > > highly context-dependent.
> >
> > I share entirely the opinion of Russ who replied to this specific point.
>
> Am I misreading you? or are you making an argument here that
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:08:37 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, 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 becaus
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think a better line is whether the source tarball includes all the
>> pieces required for someone with appropriate skills to make
>> modifications to the software with reasonable ease. The advantage of
>> that, as opposed to trying to weigh whet
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think a better line is whether the source tarball includes all the
> pieces required for someone with appropriate skills to make modifications
> to the software with reasonable ease. The advantage of that, as opposed
> to trying to weigh whether upstream has additional adv
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>
> Hum, it looks like some ftpmaster added a new entry in the FAQ (since it's
> dated October 2011). Probably Mike O'Connor since he replied to #646729
> and re-raised its severity.
>
> Mike,
Ian Jackson writes:
> One thing we and our users need to be able to do is to modify the code
> we distribute and still continue to take other changes from upstream.
> So any format that is unnecessarily hard to merge (see below for more
> discussion of this) is not suitable.
I think it's importa
On 10/27/2011 03:03 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:08:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>
Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Minified files and source code requirement"):
> > I'd like to poke a little bit at the assumption that these two things are
> > the same and that Debian necessarily uses the GPL term as our
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Minified files and source code requirement"):
> Paul Wise writes:
> > What is the preferred form for modification for a work (aka source) is
> > highly context-dependent.
>
> I'd like to poke a little bit at the assumption that thes
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 28 octobre 2011, vers 00:34,
Philipp Kern disait :
>> In other words, given the haziness in this area and the wildly divergent
>> practices of people when creating non-code works, I think we should look
>> at whether the provided "source" provides reaso
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-10-27, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In other words, given the haziness in this area and the wildly
>> divergent practices of people when creating non-code works, I think we
>> should look at whether the provided "source" provides reasonable
>> opportunity to meet the cor
On 2011-10-27, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In other words, given the haziness in this area and the wildly divergent
> practices of people when creating non-code works, I think we should look
> at whether the provided "source" provides reasonable opportunity to meet
> the core definition of free software
[Russ Allbery]
> Compressing all the whitespace out of it seems fine to me; you can
> fix that well enough using an indenter.
Yes, but why would _any_ obfuscator, I mean minimizer, compress
whitespace but not remove comments? The cleverest re-intender in the
world isn't going to be able to resto
On 10/27/11 20:53, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Compressing all the whitespace out of it seems fine to me; you can fix
> that well enough using an indenter. If the variables are also rewritten
> into meaningless names, I think it becomes more borderline. If the code
> is part "compiled" by, for instance
Roland Mas writes:
> Raphael Hertzog, 2011-10-27 09:08:37 +0200 :
>> Obfuscated != minified.
> Intent is all very well, but if the effects of the operation make the
> resulting "code" unusable, even for the best of reasons, then said code
> can't be said to be the source.
I agree with this.
Zygmunt Krynicki dijo [Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:09:52PM +0200]:
> We could use this pattern:
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.min.js
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.js
>
> A config option somewher
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:43, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki
wrote:
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in provi
Pau Garcia i Quiles, 2011-10-27 11:22:08 +0200 :
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roland Mas wrote:
>>> Requiring the non-minified file to be provided in the same source
>>> package is not a very productive use of our time.
>>
>> Right. In the same way that providing the source for our binar
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki
wrote:
> W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
>
>> I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
>> the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in providing only
>> the minified version in the binary
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in providing only
the minified version in the binary package.
I'd like to twist this to a different viewpoint. For me as
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roland Mas wrote:
>> Requiring the non-minified file to be provided in the same source
>> package is not a very productive use of our time.
>
> Right. In the same way that providing the source for our binaries
> isn't very productive, I guess, because who's goin
Raphael Hertzog, 2011-10-27 09:08:37 +0200 :
[...]
>> I think this is exactly the same as xserver-xorg-video-nv, which
>> contained obfuscated C code instead of the actual source code. I
>> personally considered that a DFSG violation but I guess you would not?
>
> I would consider it a DFSG viola
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
Hum, it looks like some ftpmaster added a new entry in the FAQ (since it's
dated October 2011). Probably Mike O'Connor since he replied to #646729
and re-raised its severity.
Mike, it would be still ni
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, 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.
>
> I think this
Paul Wise writes:
> I completely disagree with this because I thought free software was
> about equality.
> Free software licenses bring back the equality broken by copyright law.
> These licenses are completely irrelevant if we do not have equality of
> access to the source form of a work.
I
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To me, the source of something is *a* form suitable for modification of
> the work. This is *not* necessarily the same thing as the GPL's "the
> preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think
> Debian's term means that
Paul Wise writes:
> What is the preferred form for modification for a work (aka source) is
> highly context-dependent.
I'd like to poke a little bit at the assumption that these two things are
the same and that Debian necessarily uses the GPL term as our definition
of source.
To me, the source
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, 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.
I think this is exactly the same as xserver-xorg-video-nv, wh
Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:08:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> 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.
Hello Raphaël and everybody,
one of the problem wi
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
>> One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
>> often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
>> distributed, which would be a violation of DFSG item 2.
>
]] Raphael Hertzog
Hi,
| 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
| > > p
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"
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.
>
> J
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> > One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
> > often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
> > distributed, which would be a violation of DFS
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
> often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
> distributed, which would be a violation of DFSG item 2.
I did not reply on this at first but since Jakub filed #646729 us
36 matches
Mail list logo
