On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +0000, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've found several patches to procmail written by people who aren't the > original authors. This suggests that it's practically modifiable. But > you still haven't answered my question - what use is freedom to modify > if nobody can make practical use of that freedom?
Free-as-in-speech, remember? What use is a Photoshop file if you don't have Photoshop? What use is an MS Word document if you don't have Word? What use is C++ source if you don't have a C++ compiler? What use is yacc input if you don't have yacc? The latter three cases were just as dependent on non-free tools as the first not so long ago. It was common free software practice to include both input and output for the non-free tool (although I'm not sure I ever saw CFront output in a source tarball) so that the software would be both understandable and compilable. Maintainability was still restricted to those with access to the non-free tool, but that was seen as both 1) somewhat less important to free-as-in-speech concerns as such, and 2) temporary because free alternatives were under construction. But whether or not a free yacc would ever be available, I don't think anyone would have accepted as free-as-in-speech a piece of software that included yacc output without corresponding input. Declining to provide the "real" source code for a program is not just an obstacle to maintainability, it's a breach of good faith. It's playing lip service to free-as-in-speech without enabling others to understand and use the ideas in your code. That's only an issue for data such as images and formatted text if the ideas involved in the process of creating them are significant to the creative content of the work. I may not be impressed by someone who only provides a JPEG or a PDF if they obviously maintain the data in some more editable form, whether or not they use free software to edit it; but I probably don't care that much unless it's an attempt to channel use of the ideas in the work. Ultimately, that's why I object to the GFDL; and I would object similarly to calling a game free-as-in-speech if it's impractical to remove some trademarked graphic element because it's been pre-composed into many scenes that can't be satisfactorily reproduced without precursor image formats that the author has withheld. I think that it's reasonable (and the majority will of the Project) to override maintainers' judgment about the freeness of data, but only where a free-as-in-speech issue is being significantly compromised. I don't think it should be stretched to cover JPEGs (or PDFs) generally. Personally, I feel the same way about firmware; if the process used to reproduce the firmware blob isn't particularly relevant to the idea content of the driver, then I am happy to let the maintainer decide whether the upstream is acting in good faith with regard to the ostensibly free driver. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
