Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> >If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can >> >not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was >> >source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said "no >> >source code is provided", not "no source code exists".) >> >> We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all >> the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in >> the past). > > So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case?
That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only remaining "source" forms are the raw inputs and the output. It's important to retain a proper attitude towards this sort of decision: the intent of the humans involves really matters. Whether they really had the source and now don't, and why that is, matters a great deal. It's a very blurry line. > Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals? Lack of source is not an issue with the GFDL, non-modifiability is one of several. -Brian
