[Dev] [RFC] Package freedom requirements clarification

Michał Masłowski mtjm at mtjm.eu
Sun Nov 25 22:44:40 GMT 2012

> i think this should be coded into PBS:
> * we'll get pkgbuild updates directly from upstream and merge them with
>   our freedom-related and/or port changes
> * this can be done by automated tools so it's less boring work for us
>   and the intermediate probably-unfree-steering pkgbuilds won't be
>   published

Yes, keeping our PKGBUILDs similar to the upstream makes merges easier
(seen this often on mips64el).  Had a similar experience using
diff-unfree on a package with a rePKGBUILD.

> discussing freedom related issues with upstream (without trolling) is
> better. we had discussed this with encyclomundi when the syslog-ng guys
> got angry because we blacklisted them iirc, and also guestone reported a
> mislicensed art for a game that would go unnoticed if we had just
> blacklisted it.

This is another issue that will occur with any standards.  Recommend
blacklisting the package, asking upstream and leaving the issue open
until there is a free package or it's known that there won't be one?

> i think it's ok but the social contract should add the clarification in
> favor of free cultural works too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20121125/fcd40e1e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list