Re: source for artwork
* Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> [2014-02-22 17:45:34 CET]:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 05:24:07PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > I don't deny that it sounds like a reasonable definition, but insisting
> > with exactly that wording is not very constructive.
>
> I disagree.
You can disagree, but applying a wording from something different to
the DFSG which isn't there is not constructive.
> > Let's take the redeclipse case again, and a "provided 'as-is'" is clear
> > to me, insisting on anything else than what's-there-is-there is ignoring
> > its license.
>
> Well, yes, but there's nothing wrong with that. As I wrote, the
> question is not "are we in compliance with their license?", but rather
> "is their distribution in compliance with the DFSG?"
And it is.
> If I look for example at beneath a steel sky, I see only generated files
> and a complicated instruction for how to regenerate one of them (which
> doesn't even seem to be the most important). Also, that instruction
> includes "download these binary files from elsewhere". There is no
> editor for the format. I cannot see how this fits in main, even if I
> try really hard.
Because it isn't code. Please see below what I mean.
> But, to come back to this discussion, its license says it's all fine.
> We have the right to modify and redistribute it in this form (and in any
> other form, but we don't have other forms).
Exactly.
> My point is that its license is irrelevant for our discussion. So yes,
> I ignore it.
And you also ignore the fact that you apply a wording onto the DFSG
which isn't there.
> > The appropriate definition for the code at hand is its own license,
> > not one that "is a reasonable definition".
>
> The appropriate definition would be the one from the DFSG. Which
> unfortunately doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean that you can make up your own definition then. I
rather would go with that it is intentional that way.
> The one from the GPL is the only candidate that we can use, which is
> why I use it.
Use it to apply to GPL licensed stuff, but not in general, because it
doesn't fit.
> As I wrote, I don't mind using a different definition in principle,
> but I much prefer "reasonable" over "what the authors say".
But "what the authors say" is what we must follow, not what you
yourself consider "reasonable".
> With upstream, authors may not share our ideas and what they say will
> not always fit our goals.
If that is the case, then we have clear guidelines for what to do with
it, and that is to either not distribute it at all, or put it into
non-free.
> The separation between main and the rest is not based on upstream's
> rules; it's our own rules that count here.
Our rules based on what upstream's rules we are given. We can't ignore
them.
> > Also, we aren't even talking of "code".
>
> It is a fine line between code and art. Some say code is art, and I see
> their point. Some art is obviously code. I think it is a good idea to
> require source for art, just as we do for code.
But we don't. No, we really don't. If you think back to the
"editorial changes" GR which changed part of the DFSG to read "work"
instead of "software". Which ruled that we do require works other than
code to be 100% free, too.
There is one caveat with that though: DFSG #2 was *NOT* changed to read
"source for works" but still reads "source code". Given the lengthy
discussion of that GR back then I highly doubt that this has been
intentionally overlooked. And here we are: There is no source *code*
for art in general.
You might consider that pretty nitpicking - I do so myself. But given
that you deny the fact that you apply a term from the GPL onto non-GPL
work I am uncertain if that is much more nitpicking than your point.
Think about it. :)
Rhonda
--
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
Reply to: