Subject: Re: Binary-only packages

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 22:08:44 +0200 (MET DST)

Sven Rudolph writes:
> While the guidelines don't mention this case I don't like to see
> binary-only packages in the regular distribution. An important part of
> the Debian notion of free, the availability of source code, isn't
> given; therefore I suggest to put your package into non-free.

I cannot agree here. I don't think a package should be name non-free just
because it's source isn't available. I think non-free should (and does) mean
that the package (that is the binary) is not free to be distributed 

> I think you should release a source package containing only the
> scripts necessary to build the binary package and a pointer to the
> original binary archive. 

Good idea. But without a diff file it looks like an original Debian package.

> Reason: If a new version of the original archive appears someone
> else can package it. Or you might have some error in the
> debian.control file, e.g. a wrong dependency. When the packaging files
> are available everyone can fix it without having to recreate them.
> This won't happen often, but it might be necessary.

You got a point with this.

> (From this reasoning I cannot conclude why the source package needn't
> contain the whole binary ...)

At first I agreed with this, too. But thinking about it this would make the
source package architecture dependend. Not really a good idea.

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!		 | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 15:56:11 -0400 (EDT)

> that the package (that is the binary) is not free to be distributed 
You are correct in that free does imply freely distributed, but it also
means that the recipient is free to make modifications and distribute them
as well. The freedom to modify the software is what places source
availability in the requirements list for truely free software.

Note that this concept of free has nothing to do with money. In fact,
copyrights that restrict distribution for sale and profit will force a
package into non-free, as easily as any other distribution restriction. 

As the requirement for source availability is only explicit in the GPL
form of free software copyright, I can see that it might be vague just
what Debian's policy is on this. I would tend to be conservative on this
issue, but Bruce P. is the final arbiter of these issues.

Luck,

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  [email-masked]

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 09:01:58 -0400

> that the package (that is the binary) is not free to be distributed

I agree.  "non-free" can mean anything.  A binary-only package can be:

  - free distribution
  - free to use
  - non-free to modify
  - non-free to include (in whole or in part) in your own packages
  - non-free of bugs

(I don't think there is a single Debian package that truely free if you
include that last one.)

> Good idea. But without a diff file it looks like an original Debian package.

Trust me as writer/maintainer of the Netscape package...  This is a pain!
It means two different archives that must be kept in sync.  It makes it
difficult to use the nice features of dpkg to track installed files.

> You got a point with this.

Yup.  Good point.  I can see no reason why the "diff" file couldn't be
uploaded, though.  That would include all the "debian.*" files.  Patches
to programs can be distributed without legal hassles, so any source fixes
would also be acceptable.  The author would just have to specify to what
the patch file had to be applied.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.