On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:09:40 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:47:40PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > There's a misconception here. > > The source code for a work is defined (in GPLv2, section 3) as > > "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". > > > > If the author discards a form of his/her work, this form is > > apparently *not* the one he/she would prefer for making > > modifications. As a consequence, that form is, by definition, *not* > > source. > > Does that mean that I can delete the source to a program, and > distribute the binary under the GPL, since I've indicated which form I > prefer to make modifications to? :-)
If you *honestly* prefer modifying the program's executable using a hex
editor, then, that form is source.
Obviously, any downstream modifier is allowed to change the source form,
if he/she has different preferences (he/she can disassemble or decompile
it and start making modification to the disassembled or decompiled
code).
This is always true: for example, if you write a program in Fortran77
and distribute it under GPLv2, I could want to translate it in C++ in
order to make modifications to it. At that point, if I distribute the
result, the source form (for the derivative work, I mean!) is C++ code.
> I certainly would define the
> "source" of an image created in photoshop as the .psd file, but my
> opinion isn't very authoritative, certainly.
The source form for an image created in photoshop is often in .psd
format, but not necessarily.
The key question is, as usual, "which form would the author prefer for
making modifications to the image?".
Depending on circumstances, the answer could be "I would prefer
modifying the .psd file" or "I would prefer modifying the PNG form
directly" or ...
>
> > > then I guess
> > > blackbox-themes should be moved to non-free.
> >
> > As I stated, it depends.
> > Maybe source is made available for some of them.
> >
> > Upstream authors should be asked to clarify which form they prefer
> > for making modifications, whenever it's not apparent.
> > If we already have such a form, all is well.
> > If we don't, then upstream should be persuaded to provide it.
> > Only when the latter fails, the work must be moved out of main
> > (and/or contrib).
>
> I've asked many upstream authors about this (I can post full details
> if you like). As I said, the authors I asked unanimously informed me
> that I couldn't have the source for one reason or another (generally
> because they didn't have it anymore).
As I said, what should be asked is "which form would you prefer for
making modifications to the image?"
>
> > Having a package moved from main to non-free would not a be a win
> > for anyone, I would say.
> > So I hope we can obtain the missing sources (if any) and keep
> > blackbox-themes in main.
>
> I agree that having all the themes freely licensed with source would
> be a nice goal. Really, though, I'd settle for getting
> debian/copyright correct and having the package in the correct section
> of Debian, whichever that might be :-).
Of course, but I would be happier if we end up finding out that the
correct section is main!
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpCqKJWDUCmt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
