Re: Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:18 PM Alexander Mazuruk wrote: > I'm writing this as I've noticed that some packages have copyright file > filled with records for source code, while the package contains binaries. Essentially all packages in Debian do this, with a couple of exceptions where the

Re: Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

Alexander> I wanted to get some clarification as I couldnt find this Alexander> info via googling/debian pages (but I might've missed Alexander> something obvious, if so - I'd appreciate pointing me in Alexander> right direction on what should i read) Under section 2.4 of debian

Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

Hello, I'm writing this as I've noticed that some packages have copyright file filled with records for source code, while the package contains binaries. I've CCd maintainer of one of such packages (bsdutils) I wanted to get some clarification as I couldnt find this info via googling/debian

Open source files without copyright holder

[ Note the cross-posting... ] Hi debian-legal, The COPYING.md file of rdma-core [1] says: "Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders." but some files (e.g. ibacm/man/ibacm.1) do not specify a copyright holder. The copyright holder grants the user additional rights by

Re: Source files

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:06:25 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > [...] > > But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that > > it was unreasonably difficult to understand (something which is

Re: Source files

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: [...] > But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that > it was unreasonably difficult to understand (something which is very > unlikely), then we must say that that, even though no better form of > modification ever

Re: Source files

> > Being insecure shouldn't be a reason for a program to be declared > > non-free, but being unreasonably difficult to understand should be. > > Not if the program is difficult to understand even for its > maintainers... A program will never be *unreasonably* difficult to understand for its

Re: Source files

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:17:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > > > [...] > > > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. > > >

Re: Source files

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > [...] > > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. > > I don't think so. Why not? "The preferred form of modification among

Re: Source files

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: [...] > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. I don't think so. > > People use open-source software for a variety of reasons. Some people > use it for security reasons. Auditing a program where all copies of the

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:02:08 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney  : [...] > > There are many cases that are clarified by that > > definition, to the point of clear resolution. > > The recent discussions on debian-devel@ shows that

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:57:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should > > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most > > commonly used

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:21 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote: [...] > Yes, this is a nice summary. Thank you very much; You're welcome! > would it be possible > to add it somewhere to Debian (Wiki or so?) I tend to avoid the Debian Wiki, because it is a licensing mess: almost nobody cares about

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:50:06 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > For further details on what I think about the definition of source, > > anyone interested may read my essay: > >

Re: Source files

> > > 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

Re: Source files

Paul Wise writes: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > > > https://bugs.debian.org/798900 > > FYI folks: the outcome of this bug report is that the jQuery > dataTables plugin has been packaged properly and built from source > properly

Re: Source files

❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney  : >> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source >> > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the >> > most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one >> >

Re: Source files

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it > would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly > discussed in a bug report > > https://bugs.debian.org/798900 FYI folks: the

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:05:39 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Riley Baird > writes: > > > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too. > > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source

Re: Source files

Ángel González writes: > On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 >> Francesco Poli wrote: >> >>> The alternatives you propose are vague at best. >>> >>> For further details on what I think about the definition of

Re: Source files

Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Source files"): > sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding > that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source > will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is > that at some po

Re: Source files

Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry: > Ole Streicher wrote: >> Walter Landry writes: >>> Ole Streicher wrote: What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The DFSG does not contain a hint here.

Re: Source files

On 14.10.2015 10:35, Bastien Roucaries wrote: Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a écrit : I am not a specialist at all for Javascript, and all I try is just to keep a Python package (with a very responsive upstream!) in a good shape. Unfortunately,

Re: Source files

Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > >Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry: >> Ole Streicher wrote: >>> Walter Landry writes: Ole Streicher wrote: > What are the

Re: Source files

> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > source and what not This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move on. I can think of several ideas: 1. Source code must

Re: Source files

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > > source and what not > > > > This question comes up in so many

Re: Source files

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > source and what not > > This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a > definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and

Re: Source files

Riley Baird writes: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source > > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think

Re: Source files

On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: The alternatives you propose are vague at best. For further details on what I think about the definition of source, anyone interested may read my essay:

Re: Source files

Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most > commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found > in the GNU

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Riley Baird > writes: > > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > I am personally convinced that

Re: Source files

Riley Baird writes: > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too. > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically > all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it. We should be able to give

Re: Source files

Ben Finney writes: > Ole Streicher writes: >> However, it contains one line >> /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...] >> which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted. > > I would say the test of whether a file is

Re: Source files

Walter Landry writes: > Ole Streicher wrote: >> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The >> DFSG does not contain a hint here. > > The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the > preferred form of

Re: Source files

Charles Plessy writes: > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not > matter anymore. Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is actual (and, BTW, also not whether it is automatically generated) but what "is

Re: Source files

> Charles Plessy writes: > > > > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not > > matter anymore. Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is >

Re: Source files

Ole Streicher wrote: > Walter Landry writes: >> Ole Streicher wrote: >>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The >>> DFSG does not contain a hint here. >> >> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is

Source files

Hi, For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly discussed in a bug report https://bugs.debian.org/798900 however it seems that the problem is more general. The python-astropy package indeed contains

Re: Source files

Ole Streicher wrote: > What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The > DFSG does not contain a hint here. The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the preferred form of modification for the people making modifications. If a person

Re: Source files

Le Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:49:03AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it > would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly > discussed in a bug report > > https://bugs.debian.org/798900 > > however it seems

Re: Source files

Ole Streicher writes: > However, it contains one line > > /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...] > > which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted. If it's automatically inserted into that file, that seems to entail the resulting file is not the

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

Ben Finney wrote: [note: quotations in random order] (We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.) Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

* Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org [090320 10:08]: Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of recipients: mere inclusion of license

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney wrote: Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of recipients: mere

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

(We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.) Dominik Smatana dominik.smat...@gmail.com writes: One more license-newbie question: In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at beginning: // Please see included LICENSE.TXT licensecheck says

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

to correct: Manterola writes (Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source): On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ stuff ] No. .c files are still source code. This is not correct. `Source code' means (in the words of the GPL

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit : I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK, to have source code in

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 23:19 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only questionable case I found by this sampling is dia, where the file is generated by Glade and then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add the

25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

case I encountered and after which I got the idea to do this. In addition to the cases I found in main, the packages easyspice and gtktrain in contrib seem suspect too (but I didn't take such a close look). Here's the list of the 25 packages and the relevant source files

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the note DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade. which indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I checked if these packages

Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files

Øystein Gisnås wrote: I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file ishttp

Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files

Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 05:01 +0200, Øystein Gisnås a écrit : I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed

libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files

I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: [...] The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:58:36 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: Yes, I think it's time to propose a GR to do a s/program/work/ in the DFSG. Since IANADD, I cannot propose GRs, but I hope that some DDs will help. It's not quite that simple; you can't just change that bit alone. I'm working

Re: Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]: On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that, as presently written, we are obliged to apply

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Andreas Barth: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as declared goal to replace any such places with the real meaning, and this was not touched, it has to be

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Steve McIntyre: Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what software means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of program too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about program are unclear and should say software, then propose a GR to get them

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steve McIntyre: Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what software means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of program too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about program are

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

Florian Weimer wrote: * Andreas Barth: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as declared goal to replace any such places with the real meaning, and this was not

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Steve McIntyre: The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a real problem here (beyond the invariant section business) -- the GNU

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050728 16:19]: * Steve McIntyre: The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a real problem

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steve McIntyre: The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a real

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Andreas Barth: I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? Actually, it is not

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Steve McIntyre: Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? With a few practical exceptions, of course (license texts, public key certificates, etc.), but the general rule seems to be followed. What? I'm astounded by

Re: Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]: On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction. The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve problems

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: [...] The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from a foggy definition of program to a more dogmatic everything we ship

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR to change the wording

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most certainly _is_ new, and is

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: [argument of program vs. software] If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The point

Re: Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that Debian should follow for everything

Re: Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that, as presently written, we are obliged to apply them to non-program works. I'd prefer to approach

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steve Langasek: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend the DFSG and this still says

Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that Debian should follow for everything we distribute. I think that clause 2 is *not* clearly applicable

Re: Does DFSG#2 apply to non-programs? [was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:28:23 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [some hopefully useful contributions to the discussion, but with *wrong* Mail-Followup-To:] Please, ignore the wrong Mail-Followup-To: set in the my previous message. I forgot to disable it! :-( I really really apologize. Sylpheed

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from which they could be compiled, I concluded two things: - To satisfy the GPL, the source for those graphics needs to be distributed as well, so it must be in the source package. Probably correct.

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

Andreas Barth wrote: Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main. Read TrueType instructions and say that again! Some fonts are most certainly programs. PDFs are arguably executables designed for a PDF interpreter. But let's not get into that again right now. -- To

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:17:59 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: My gut instinct is no, it's fine, put it in main, because the compiler is not required by the system, since the system functions fine without recompiling the graphics (and will continue to). I may be wrong, though! Huh? Are you

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:48:43PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: We know perfectly well that the NVidia driver is in the condition it's in partly because its development is funded by a profit-seeking entity that has no wish to destabilize its market position, either by making it easier for

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't, because we like nVidia. ... Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I see it. I would say that the core functionality of the nv driver is not

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:56]: * Andreas Barth: Actually, the DFSG says: | 2. Source Code | | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in | source code as well as compiled form. Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

(CC's trimmed.) On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as declared goal to replace any such places with

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]: (CC's trimmed.) On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Matthew Garrett: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthew Garrett: How is one of these free and the other non-free? In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so I don't think this

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Andreas Barth: Actually, the DFSG says: | 2. Source Code | | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in | source code as

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]: (CC's trimmed.) On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:22:34AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Garrett: There's two main issues here. 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of modification? I don't believe so, We had a GR that is

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On 20050723T013237+0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free, but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main? This is not a universally applicable rule, but: When a good programmer writes uncommented code, it's

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:44:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source fundamental to having a free program. Because it is, damnit? No, because one provided source, and the other

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:15:12 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: I think it would be massive negligence for the project to accept as source something which it knows has been obfuscated. If that's the case, I'm rather disgusted. It's hard to take a project seriously which claims to require source,

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:01:07 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote: * Steve Langasek: It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to be interpreted as software. No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend the DFSG and this still says

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

* Matthew Garrett: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthew Garrett: How is one of these free and the other non-free? In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

23.07.2005 pisze Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): What difference does upstream intent make to the freedoms that our users receive? If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the defendant wins in

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the defendant wins in the end. Are you missing the point deliberately? The question was: if we have two examples of source code; one stripped of comments by

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:29:19 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: You seem to be arguing that preferred form for modification is a poor definition of source based on the fact that it doesn't permit passing off obfuscated code (such as, perhaps, nVidia's) as source, and that seems to me to be one of its

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:09:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: [...] I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for instance.) If there's a

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:28:54PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't, because we like nVidia. ... Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I see

  1   2   >