Hello, > Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> writes: > > You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to > > be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy > > to obtain the source code). > > "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute > the complete corresponding source code too."[1] > > "If you make object code available on a network server, you have to > provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well."[2] > > And having a jalview package in the archive does not help as this does > not guarantee we have the source for the exact version of jalview > bundled with ensembl. > > Ansgar > > [1] <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary> > [2] <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources>
Formally speaking there is nothing to argue about. We should remove that .jar. To grant us some more time to orchestrate the individuals behind that package and get up to speed with the much progressed upstream developments, may I ask for an exempt for the Ensembl package, not harming too many in experimental, from [1] for another while, please? Many greetings Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
