Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Carr wrote: > On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote: > >On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote: > >>Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to > >>redistribute under the GPL. > > > >This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained > >how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form > >for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL: > > It can't be explained because your assumptions are wrong. > > You think that section 3 needs to be satisfied based on your > interpretation but it only needs to be satisfactory to the author. This is the "it's against the license, but the author doesn't care" argument. It may be true in many cases, but it's not compelling, and not something that we should even account for in our licensing discussions, because the owners of copyrights can change, their attitude towards Debian can change, and even more importantly, their attitude towards our users and mirror operators can change. [And really, if that's their interpretation, then they can grant additional permissions to the GNU GPL.] Don Armstrong -- If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway. -- Lowery's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote: Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to redistribute under the GPL. This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL: It can't be explained because your assumptions are wrong. You think that section 3 needs to be satisfied based on your interpretation but it only needs to be satisfactory to the author. The GPL is not a contract. Rights are granted by the creator. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPLed software with no true source.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:11:58 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: > I really mean upstream in the sense that > it's used in Debian packaging, where it means whoever is modifying and > distributing modifications that we use and distribute further. If > upstream is holding back information from us that they actually use to > make modifications, then we aren't distributing the prefered form for > modification. For the record, I agree with Don Armstrong here. Source code for a work is the preferred form for making modification to it. IMO, the question "preferred by whom?" should be answered to by replying "by the one who actually modifies and maintains that particular branch (or fork) of the work". The upstream maintainer is the one who actually modifies the work as you get it, and thus is the one who shows by practice which form he/she really prefers for the purpose of modifying it. Of course, if upstream lies, there's a problem. But this is not a flaw of the source code definition. There are many issues with liars: for instance, what if upstream lies when he/she states that some piece of code included in the work is his/her creation? What if upstream lies when he/she states that some piece of external code he/she incorporated into the work was available under a given (compatible) license? BTW, I'm not commenting on the particular issue at hand (that is to say, on the ITP'd work of bug #402650), because I have not seen the code under discussion. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/releas-o-meter.html Try our amazing Releas-o-meter! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpwpdBo0iIXn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Assista o BBB7 por 30 dias gratuitos !!!
- This mail is in HTML. Some elements may be ommited in plain text. -
