Hi, On 2014-03-11 00:09, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern:as long as the code in question is not under a license that requires the full, non-minified source to be reproduced and if the copyright notices and license terms as potentially required by the license are present, Idon't see why not. But I guess the latter is not commonly happening?The most common case is that the file http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.0.min.js is included without http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.0.js The minified file contains a copyright header, and the license is MIT, so I believe shipping jquery-1.11.0.min.js without query-1.11.0.js is allowed.So you’d say it is acceptable to leave jquery-1.11.0.min.js in a tarball if it is unused (e.g. if it is removed in the clean target, and possiblydocumented in README.Source)? Can maybe someone from the ftp-team confirm this?
how bad would it be for those upstreams to just include an unused copy of the non-minified version? Clearly it'd never be used by anything in the upstream packaging because you almost always want to ship minified JS to browsers in production. But if they already fetch the min and you have a working relationship with upstream… maybe they're sympathetic.
I still think it should be acceptable given that it's an open source project, it's clearly versioned from which source it comes and we check by not using the file that no changes have been done to the minification. I guess we could even go one step further and argue that the source for this is in fact in Debian. If we could generate the same minification result as jquery upstream in Debian, all we'd "need" would be the equivalent of a source-depends or a pointer in debian/copyright. It's not that we don't ship its source, after all.
Kind regards Philipp Kern