Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG (original) (raw)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
- From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:17:39 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040602001739.071f162d.frx@firenze.linux.it>
- In-reply-to: 20040531050436.GK1117@zewt.org
- References: 871xl2eb6b.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net c9dhh9$2m7$1@sea.gmane.org 20040530221905.GF1117@zewt.org 8765adqnhg.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net 20040531050436.GK1117@zewt.org
On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:04:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
- Source code "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that is appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and inner workings."
Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?
Personally, I don't think there is... I would prefer the definition of source code adopted by the GPL: it's less vague.
One case where this seems different is images. For example, I have several PNGs, generated by Photoshop. The PNG itself is appropriate for modifying the work, but it's not the preferred form for modification. Going by feel, it's not the source of the work at all.
I agree. The PNG format is not source, if it's generated from some other format. It can be source, though, when editing is being performed directly on it. In other words, the most suitable definition of source code seems the "preferred form for making modifications".
This also reveals a case that hasn't been resolved: do we expect source for PNGs, when such a form exists?
I think we should.
In practice, we don't,
Strange! :-|
and I tend to classify it as "that would be nice, but it's not a worthwhile battle".
Why? What if someone wants to modify those images?
Another major case of this (and one which is less ambiguous) is fonts. It would be nice to find a consensus on these, rather than having a new set of guidelines that still doesn't address the issue.
I thought that DFSG#2 was already addressing the issue ("The program must include source code").
(I'll admit that "I don't want Debian to have to drop most of its high- quality fonts" is probably a major factor in my opinion on this, which sounds somewhat like "I don't want Debian to have to drop Netscape".)
Are there so many high-quality fonts with no actual source code in Debian? More important: are there so few high-quality fonts with source available in Debian?
-- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:<pgpC4S%5F1IA0fw.pgp>
Description: PGP signature
Reply to:
- Prev by Date:You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
- Next by Date:Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
- Previous by thread:Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
- Next by thread:Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
- Index(es):