Hi, > I think we should be clear that this wasn't a decision that the > tag2upload Delegates took. It was taken by the FTP team, when > dgit-repos was first started. We explicitly got them to okay storing > potentially non-free stuff in git histories there.
There is a difference between some parts of Debian distributing non- free artifacts and making non-free artifacts parts of what Debian considers source. The Dgit folks want to make the complete Git repository, including the non-free artifacts, the "source", thus disregarding the social contract in its current form. And it is not possible to clean this up even with rewriting commit history as that would require resetting branch history[1]. They go so far as to claim that including, for example, the Dgit software within the Debian archive as-is would actually be a license violation as it does not include the Git history (but if development history data is such an inherent part of the "preferred form of modification", then I wonder whether issue tracker data and mailing list data should also be considered part of the complete "preferred form of modification"). The "outdated" source model allows excluding artifacts as it doesn't require shipping (incomplete) historic baggage associated with the development which might contain non-free artifacts. Ansgar [1]: Or dropping the suite branches. There is no reason to artificially enforce that unstable uploads are children of each other.
