Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is hundreds of times the size of the binary.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103210809001.16...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, rather than the uncompressed form. Hence, in this case, the actual source is the *compressed* form, being the preferred form for making further modifications. (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is hundreds of times the size of the binary.) Well, it's not the GPL that may fail to work well. The fact is that it's *not* Free Software, when the original author keeps the preferred form for making further modifications (that is to say: source code), but refuses to distribute it. Hence, whatever license you choose, you're *not* distributing Free Software, if you keep the source undisclosed. However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvqSPrA8GRj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! It's possible that the compressed form can be impractical for some purposes but not others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103211503530.2...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:47:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It is not common, but it does not require insanity. Only that the modifier does not intend to do any maintenance. I agree that, in the case of a program as in my example, Debian would not be interested in redistribution anyway. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Thanks for clarifying. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Copyleft is more. Let A be the original author, B be the modifier and C a user of the modified work. In my understanding of copyleft, C should have the same freedoms (including access to real sources) with respect to the modified work by B as B had with respect to the original work by A. Not only the same ones that B now has with respect to his own work. I guess I'll just mark this as yet another reason not to use the GPL. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110320205128.GA3200@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes: Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. It can happen that the scientific paper has non-free copyright: it uses to be attributed to the journal where first published. Not the case here: the paper (actually a book chapter) was prepared by US govt employees so there is no (US) copyright to start with. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aags1rsg@mid.gienah.enyo.de
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. [...] And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. In such a case, the author of the modifications isn't in a privileged position. I am sorry but I don't quite understand this comment. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318214815.GA3066@debian
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Don Armstrong -- Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318224739.ga29...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:57:24 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Mark Weyer wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. This seems to be a FAQ... Not on http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq though. What FAQ should I have been looking at? It's a FAQ in the sense that it is a question that gets frequently asked here on debian-legal, even though it is possible that nobody has included it into a FAQ document (yet). I've seen it asked a good number of times, enough to think of it as a FAQ. See for instance: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/03/msg00104.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/03/msg00105.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/03/msg00106.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/03/msg00117.html Thanks for the answer. You're welcome. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpKTospkTNeu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Francesco Poli wrote: [...] It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. [...] I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for modifications) should be searched for. Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316092639.4c16750...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Paul Wise wrote: This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Indeed, but that REJECT-FAQ has not been applied to this package as far as I can tell, maybe because it predates it. Maybe someone who thinks those PS files should be removed should reportbug it? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316093216.0dada50...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. I have been on this list for a decade, and I have not seen any other definitions that have any significant support. Perhaps other forums have different makeups, but on debian-legal I have not seen any other cohesive approaches. I have seen plenty of people say things like it is POSSIBLE to modify it, therefore it is source. But that makes the source requirement a no-op. This is in contrast to, for example, which licenses people prefer. Some people prefer GPL, some prefer MIT, some prefer BSD, etc. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316.091951.170313769160757168.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. At least here on debian-legal, it seems to be the only commonly accepted definition. Any other (tentative) definition is vague at best... [...] I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for modifications) should be searched for. Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. This seems to be a FAQ... Well, if some form of that work no longer exists, it cannot be the preferred form for making modifications to the work itself. One thing is when the author/maintainer uses a form of the work to make modifications (because he/she prefers that form), but does not make this form available to others. In this case, the actual source is being kept secret. One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the existing ones. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp8cqmmArqFu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. This seems to be a FAQ... Well, if some form of that work no longer exists, it cannot be the preferred form for making modifications to the work itself. One thing is when the author/maintainer uses a form of the work to make modifications (because he/she prefers that form), but does not make this form available to others. In this case, the actual source is being kept secret. One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the existing ones. Is this your personal opinion or did you perceive it to be commonly accepted? I am asking because I tend to disagree. The scenario I have in mind is that someone takes a, say, GPLed work, modifies it, and distributes the modified work without (what would otherwise be called) sources, claiming that he lost the sources. I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. It should not be that easy to weasel out of copyleft. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316194845.GA5895@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. -- bye, Joerg From a NM after doing the license stuff: I am glad that I am not a lawyer! What a miserable way to earn a living. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vczk6b7q@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
tag 614525 - pending thanks Hi Joerg On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. Ok, thanks for too the point of view from ftp-masters. I have not checked, it yet, but then the same problem may arise for 'multimix', which I encountered as it FTBFS too due to missing 'ghostscript' for ps2pdf in Build-Depends [1]. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/618031 I have cancelled the NMU for the moment. Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Hi debian-legal I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 [2] http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked: I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 [2] http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ They're in the upstream source tarball, so I think they're covered by the current copyright statement http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/autoclass/current/copyright which isn't a licence that requires original source code (like GPL might IIRC) and arguably PS files are program source code anyway so I think I'd ship it in both. Why do you think not? If we had an easier-to-use source code for the files, we should include that, but PS is OK. Hope that informs, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314110939.1271850...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Hi! On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Salvatore Bonaccorso asked: I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 [2] http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ They're in the upstream source tarball, so I think they're covered by the current copyright statement http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/autoclass/current/copyright which isn't a licence that requires original source code (like GPL might IIRC) and arguably PS files are program source code anyway so I think I'd ship it in both. Why do you think not? If we had an easier-to-use source code for the files, we should include that, but PS is OK. Hope that informs, Yes that helps! Indeed I was unsure about the '... requires original source code'-part. Thanks for clarification. Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso car...@debian.org wrote: [2] http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ Both of these files have lines like the following in their header: %%Creator: dvipsk 5.521a Copyright 1986, 1993 Radical Eye Software %DVIPSCommandLine: dvips -o cheeseman.draft4.ps cheeseman.draft4.dvi %DVIPSSource: TeX output 1995.02.21:2227 dvips (from texlive-binaries) appears to be something that translates dvi files to postscript. It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimzj8tqdxixbkgx1cwv7ztwc3uusnzt1ecdy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries
if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. To do that
needs more detail than exists in the current DFSG. The DFSG text and
two alternative definitions from dict are shown below: one would
accept the PS files, the other would reject them.
I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to
reconstruct, I'd still let them stay.
Just to remind myself: [http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines]
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form.
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
source code
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
the object code for a particular computer before
execution
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:
source code
language, programming (Or source, or rarely source
language) The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically into
{object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
{interpreter}.
(1995-01-05)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314150900.2091450...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
* MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop [110314 16:09]: Paul Wise wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I think the consensus is that source is more or less what the GPL explicitly defines source code to be: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.. If something is not suitable to realistically make any changes to it, it definitely is not source in any meaning useful to interpret the DFSG. And while postscript can be nice hand-written source, dvips generated postscript code is usually the exact opposite and most of the time even too opaque to even make trivial changes. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314164229.ga4...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:09:00 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Paul Wise wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. AFAICT, the common interpretation of the DFSG assumes that source code means the preferred form for making modifications. I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. IMHO, they aren't, if it's true that they are not the preferred form for making modifications. [...] I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for modifications) should be searched for. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpexn326ZsLS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
In addition to the points already covered by Bernhard and Francesco:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
source code
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
the object code for a particular computer before
execution
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:
source code
language, programming (Or source, or rarely source
language) The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically into
{object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
{interpreter}.
(1995-01-05)
Both definitions would make the source code requirement void or trivial
to fulfill. Any file can be compiled from its hex dump, which is ASCII.
And for all kinds of file formats you will find a geek who claims that
she actually already has created a file of that format by typing its hex
dump [0]. Anyway, the above seem to be definitions of source code in
general, not source code of a specific file.
Best regards,
Mark Weyer
[0] I, for example, regularly use text editors for creating xpm pictures.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314211210.GA3099@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Paul Wise wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I've always defined the source to be whatever the original author used to create the files I'm looking at. The phrase preferred form for modification and the spirit of FLOSS as defined by the FSF and Debian/OSI has always indicated to me equality of access to information forms. That is, IMO the source code is whatever form the author preferred to modify the work. So an ELF executable could be source code if it was written by hand instead of generated using GCC. This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html As to the legal definition, anyone know? I personally doubt it has ever been defined. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimChgF57RPCvwEOf9ORVVCymWvXepc=e6hrx...@mail.gmail.com
