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? :-) I certainly would define the "source" of an image created in photoshop as the .psd file, but my opinion isn't very authoritative, certainly. > > 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). > 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 :-). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
