| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code |
| 3 |
>> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to |
| 4 |
>> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages |
| 5 |
>> and fonts mostly) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> BTW, do you have a list of packages that are affected by this? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
No, just casual observations. This list is not complete. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* media-fonts packages without fontforge USE flag don't build from source, |
| 12 |
and sometimes the source cannot be located despite the font license |
| 13 |
qualifying as free |
| 14 |
* KDE and other artwork comes as PNG but lacks the (presumably SVG) source |
| 15 |
from which it was generated |
| 16 |
* Some firmware comes with source but requires special toolchain for building |
| 17 |
* Some -bin packages are built by Gentoo projects (icedtea-bin, |
| 18 |
libreoffice-bin) and we know where the source is |
| 19 |
* Some -bin packages are built by upstreams (firefox-bin, openoffice-bin) |
| 20 |
where it is maybe less clear which exact source it was built from. In the |
| 21 |
case of firefox-bin there are additional trademark issues when redistributing |
| 22 |
modified versions |
| 23 |
* Some binary packages have binaries under restrictive licenses but source |
| 24 |
code under free licenses (e.g. android-sdk-update-manager, sun-jmx) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think at least for the first three points, Debian has already done |
| 27 |
extensive work. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives