Marvin Renich writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#817092: Bug#817092: this
browserified"):
> * Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> [160711 07:08]:
> > Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-07-11 10:30:59)
> > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:41:17 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> > > > The requirement of source format of redistributed code is not about
> > > > it being possible/easy to edit by those receiving it¹, but about it
> > > > being in the format preferred by _upstream_ to edit - e.g. for
> > > > passing patches upstream.
>
> I have to disagree with this. The requirement for "preferred form of
> modification" was explicitly to allow the recipient of the software the
> freedom and ability to modify the software, not to force a particular
> workflow (e.g. upstream's workflow) on the recipient, or require the
> recipient to send patches back to upstream (which fails the dissident
> test).
But, we need the freedom and ability to modify the software
collectively, not just individually. That *does* mean we should be
able to share our changes with other downstreams of the same upstream,
and with the upstream itself.
Furthermore, as a matter of being good free software citizens, we
ought to try to send our patches to upstream.
> My interpretation of "preferred form" is _any_ (explicitly not "the")
> form which a significant percentage of persons who have experience
> modifying that kind of software would agree that the given form is as
> easy to modify as any other form, modulo some level of personal
> preference. Using upstream's preferred form is not required in order to
> satisfy the license's preferred form.
I am, in general, unconvinced by these arguments. In practice if
upstream choose to modify things in form X, and do not accept
modifications presented as changes to form Y, then I am unconvinced by
arguments that form Y is "an also preferred form" for modification, or
some such.
> Free software encourages, but does not require, giving back to the free
> software community. Free software _does_ require giving the recipient
> equal footing to modify the software.
Your analysis takes no account of the fundamentally collaborative and
collective nature of free software development.
Ian.
