Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray wrote: > Paul Wise wrote: >> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are >> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the >> source files are TeX documents. > > Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > means by source code? I've always defined the source to be whatever the original author used to create the files I'm looking at. The phrase "preferred form for modification" and the spirit of FLOSS as defined by the FSF and Debian/OSI has always indicated to me equality of access to information forms. That is, IMO the source code is whatever form the author preferred to modify the work. So an ELF executable could be source code if it was written by hand instead of generated using GCC. This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html As to the legal definition, anyone know? I personally doubt it has ever been defined. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimChgF57RPCvwEOf9ORVVCymWvXepc=e6hrx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
In addition to the points already covered by Bernhard and Francesco:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> source code
>n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
>translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
>the object code for a particular computer before
>execution
>
> The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:
>
> source code
>
>(Or "source", or rarely "source
> language") The form in which a computer program is written by
> the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
> programming language which can be compiled automatically into
> {object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
> {interpreter}.
>
> (1995-01-05)
Both definitions would make the source code requirement void or trivial
to fulfill. Any file can be "compiled" from its hex dump, which is ASCII.
And for all kinds of file formats you will find a geek who claims that
she actually already has created a file of that format by typing its hex
dump [0]. Anyway, the above seem to be definitions of source code in
general, not source code of a specific file.
Best regards,
Mark Weyer
[0] I, for example, regularly use text editors for creating xpm pictures.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314211210.GA3099@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:09:00 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Paul Wise wrote: > > [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are > > the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the > > source files are TeX documents. > > Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > means by source code? It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code" in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. AFAICT, the common interpretation of the DFSG assumes that "source code" means "the preferred form for making modifications". > > I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries > if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. IMHO, they aren't, if it's true that they are not the preferred form for making modifications. [...] > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for modifications) should be searched for. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpexn326ZsLS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
* MJ Ray [110314 16:09]: > Paul Wise wrote: > > [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are > > the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the > > source files are TeX documents. > > Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > means by source code? I think the consensus is that source is more or less what the GPL explicitly defines source code to be: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.". If something is not suitable to realistically make any changes to it, it definitely is not source in any meaning useful to interpret the DFSG. And while postscript can be nice hand-written source, dvips generated postscript code is usually the exact opposite and most of the time even too opaque to even make trivial changes. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314164229.ga4...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Paul Wise wrote:
> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
> source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries
if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. To do that
needs more detail than exists in the current DFSG. The DFSG text and
two alternative definitions from dict are shown below: one would
accept the PS files, the other would reject them.
I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to
reconstruct, I'd still let them stay.
Just to remind myself: [http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines]
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form.
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
source code
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
the object code for a particular computer before
execution
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:
source code
(Or "source", or rarely "source
language") The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically into
{object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
{interpreter}.
(1995-01-05)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314150900.2091450...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > [2] > http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ Both of these files have lines like the following in their header: %%Creator: dvipsk 5.521a Copyright 1986, 1993 Radical Eye Software %DVIPSCommandLine: dvips -o cheeseman.draft4.ps cheeseman.draft4.dvi %DVIPSSource: TeX output 1995.02.21:2227 dvips (from texlive-binaries) appears to be something that translates dvi files to postscript. It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimzj8tqdxixbkgx1cwv7ztwc3uusnzt1ecdy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Hi! On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Salvatore Bonaccorso asked: > > I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During > > checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps > > and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. > > > > Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? > > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 > > [2] > > http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ > > They're in the upstream source tarball, so I think they're covered > by the current copyright statement > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/autoclass/current/copyright > which isn't a licence that requires original source code (like GPL > might IIRC) and arguably PS files are program source code anyway > so I think I'd ship it in both. Why do you think not? > > If we had an easier-to-use source code for the files, we should > include that, but PS is OK. > > Hope that informs, Yes that helps! Indeed I was unsure about the '... requires original source code'-part. Thanks for clarification. Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked: > I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During > checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps > and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. > > Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 > [2] > http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ They're in the upstream source tarball, so I think they're covered by the current copyright statement http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/autoclass/current/copyright which isn't a licence that requires original source code (like GPL might IIRC) and arguably PS files are program source code anyway so I think I'd ship it in both. Why do you think not? If we had an easier-to-use source code for the files, we should include that, but PS is OK. Hope that informs, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314110939.1271850...@nail.towers.org.uk
scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Hi debian-legal I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525 [2] http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/ Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
