[Openstack-devel] Websockify has been rejected from upload in Debian

[Joel Martin]

Thomas,


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Thomas Goirand <thomas at goirand.fr> wrote:
>
> Can't you make that work with swftools / mtasc? What is the problem with
> them? (sorry, I'm not a flash specialist)
>

I don't know, I'm not a Flash expert either. If you determine a method to
do so please let me know and I'll try and get that documented in the
web-socket-js README.


> > noVNC is already open source and free software; it fulfills all four
> > fundamental freedoms of free software
> > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).
>
> That is not correct, since your repository doesn't even hold the source
> code of the SWF files. At least, you should add such source code.
>
> > It may not match the
> > stricter requirements that Debian requires, but it is still 100% FOSS.
>
> I don't agree. Not in the current state. 100% FOSS would mean that you
> would provide the source code for 100% of what you release. Though
> currently, there's no source for the .swf file, and the swfobject.js is
> obfuscated.
>
> One better level would be to ship the source of both. Even better if you
> could ship something which we could build in a Linux distribution for
> the .swf object, though providing the source that could be used with
> some kind of external non-free (or not available) program would still
> better than now.
>
> Could you at least agree to un-obfuscate the swfobject.js, and ship the
> source code (is it a .fla file?) of the .swf file? If you feel like we
> need to optimize swfobject.js into a compressed "binary", then there are
> multiple tools available for that in Debian (and other distro).


Please don't confuse "provide" with "include". Even the GPL doesn't require
that sources be physically included with the generated objects, it only
requires that the sources that correspond to those objects are provided via
a mechanism that is equally convenient. But also note that noVNC is not
GPL, but rather MPL 2.0 (which is also a free software license).

I still contend that noVNC is 100% FOSS and that you haven't shown
otherwise.

Please cite the specific Debian policy that prohibits the inclusion object
files that have been generated from other free software. I would be
surprised if there is such a clause since it would imply that a Debian ISO
build would not be free software in the same sense because the source is
not physically included (only provided externally).


> Please don't bring the argument of convenience here. Microsoft Windows
> might be more convenient, though we aren't using this as an argument in
> the open source community. Richard Stallman so often explained (better
> than I) why this isn't a point to make (you can read any of his
> conference, you will hear about it). There is never an argument for
> shipping some binary blobs with no source code attached.


Your very request is for me to change the way I maintain noVNC so as to
make it more convenient for you and Debian (so you don't have to maintain a
separate source tree) while making life less convenient for me and other
users/integrators of noVNC. I value free software more than I value
convenience, but convenience is a lesser, but nonetheless still a real
value. I would like to make it as convenient as possible for you and I and
other users and integrators of noVNC. However, I'm not willing to remove
the swf because I don't believe that this actually violates any tenet of
free software (or even the GPL) because the source that corresponds to the
swf is available as I've stated (https://github.com/gimite/web-socket-js).

"There is never an argument for shipping some binary blobs with no source
code attached." That is incorrect and doesn't even apply to GPL licensed
code. Please see the question/answers beginning here in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet

If having a generated object in the tree violates Debian policy (which
specific clause is that?), then one of the less convenient options will
need to be applied: either you continue to maintain a separate tree, or put
noVNC in universe.

Also, if including/attaching web-socket-js sources as a git submodule makes
it more convenient for you, that offer still stands so let me know.

Regards,

Joel Martin (kanaka)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/attachments/20130411/1bb6ed20/attachment.html>