Dmitrijs Ledkovs <[email protected]> writes: > That's what I thought as well cause source is not available in > preffered form of modification.
I don't understand this. The definition that has been used in this thread is that the preferred form of the work for modifying that work *is* the source form. > But imagine if noone in debian knew that this raster font was > generated from something else, then it would DFSG-free. No. If it violates DFSG, but that fact is not yet known, that does not make it DFSG-free. If people act on an assumption (as we must frequently do), that does not alter the truth. > So just expanding on that. DFSG source requirement is concluded by > judging each time what is source. And this is biased sometimes as we > see in this example. It is indeed open to interpretation, and that interpretation is necessary in order to make a judgement of whether a work should be considered to meet the DFSG. > The model (I presume in somekind of human or machine parsable format) > if distributed under free license does allow to view all parameters > and tweak them. Just as distributing a program as a binary blob “allows” the recipient to alter any bytes they like. That doesn't mean such a distribution is sufficient to be free under the DFSG. > Now imagine we have […] what will be source then? If your intent is to demonstrate that taking something to extremes leads to absurdities, you have a very easy task that has been done many times before. That doesn't help in making judgements about *actual* works and the *actual* freedoms recipients have in them. -- \ “Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.” —Henry N. Camp | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
