Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > > It seems to me that the primary objection to the presence of these > > files without source is that they are then distributed as part of > > Debian, in the source package. That violates our social contract. > > The counter-argument from affected maintainers is that we *do* have > the source. It just happens to be in a different source package. We > even know that, because when we build the binary package we use the > version of the Javascript library derived from that other source > package.
Ah, yes, for the minified Javascript libraries. I was responding to a broader claim from Ian Jackson about files without source, from Message-ID: <20535.29720.103031.195...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>: The DFSG is correct - sourceless minified js files, GFDL docs with invariant sections, gimp-generated pixmaps without the original gimp source, etc., are all Not Free Software. and the subject field had not yet changed to match. My apologies, I've fixed that here. > There is therefore no *actual* violation of the social contract here, > just an inadequacy of bookkeeping. In the case of files where the source is in another source package, yes. -- \ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than | `\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/876287ft78.fsf...@benfinney.id.au