Hi Steve, I think we're wasting our time here; the bug is closed and I don't intend to reopen it. However you said some inaccuracies that I feel need to be corrected.
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:07:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > You might have a point here; the root of the problem seems to be the > > definition of "source code", and the DFSG doesn't resolve this ambiguity. > > Some think "source code" is the preferred form of modification for any > > form of data, some think it only applies to certain types of data, etc. > > And then even "preferred" doesn't mean the same to everyone! > > No, this entirely misses the point, which is that the DFSG does not require > source code for works which are not programs. Perhaps you're referring to DFSG #2 "The program must include source code". In this context the "program" is Linux, the kernel. The only remaining question is what is the "source code" of Linux, and I don't see that the DFSG resolves that in one or the other way. Or perhaps you're referring to SC #1. It used to be that it explicitly required "software" to be free, and then we used to have a lot of fun argueing about what "software" means. Fortunately, GR 2004/003 resolved this by removing that word (btw I acknowledge your merit in being one of the seconders of that GR). This is the reason we've been appliing DFSG to all kind of works: firmware, documentation, artwork... IMHO, the problem we have here is that we're so worried about the literal interpretation of the foundation documents, that when we see an ambiguity we fail to recognise it, and pretend it doesn't exist. > > Overall, it sounds like a gray area to me. Has this been discussed in > > -legal? > > I don't remember, but it doesn't matter. -legal is an advisory body only. > It's been discussed on -legal, -kernel, and -release for sure. Yes, -legal is an advisory body, that's why I suggest checking with -legal when we want to obtain advice. Are you impliing that their opinion is not relevant? This links to what I said above about ambiguities; I believe the only way to resolve them is through discussion and consensus. -legal is IMHO the right place to discuss DFSG interpretation; -kernel sounds like the right place to discuss a specific application of that interpretation, once a consensus is built on it. -release does AFAICT have nothing to do with either of these things. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
