Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> writes: > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> writes: > Are you 100% sure that's it is not including ONLY the binary? What in > the case where we ship also the source code like I did? Would that > change if I add the windows source code for OpenSSL (which I think would > be quite silly)?
Yes, the problem is that it is not possible to make sure the source code belongs to the included binary. >> although there is a >> proposed GR [1] that suggests to change this (the GR also lists builds >> for Windows explicitly as an example). > > But it doesn't talk about my specific case, where source of the windows > code is also present. It does. It mentions a build for Windows of the same program that will be included in Debian. In that case the source code for the program is present. > Just to let you know, I do believe that freeness is very important, and > I'm not trying to resist here, but trying to understand and find > solution. I'm happy you have sent this report, and now I realize that > you might be right (I still have to make sure of it), then find > solutions. So, thanks for this BTS entry, and I hope we can continue the > discussion until a solution may be found. I really want to keep the > windows binary. Maybe there's a way to have it built in Debian? Do you > know if there's the necessary tools in the archive? I don't see any use for the Windows binaries in the source archive as it is not included in any binary package and thus not readily available to users anyway. As it is intended for Windows users in any case, why not just include a link to an alternative download location? Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
