Re: Social Contract GR's effect on sarge
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:39:37AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:38:29AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > Furthermore, any bitmap rendering of a vector drawing has to be
>> > removed if the vector drawing is not available, and all Postscript
>> > files without source code have to be removed. This audit is a
>
> [Postscript files can be source code; it is a Turing-complete
> programming language, albeit with lousy support for IO, and we do ship
> several such programs]
Debian also ships C source code which has been obfuscated or comes
from some kind of transpiler (see tex4ht). I don't consider this
source code in the DFSG sense. Some of this source code is as open to
modification as compiled binary code from a practical point of view.
> "Source" is usually interpreted like the GPL's "preferred form for
> modification".
Exactly, and a bitmap image often isn't such a preferred form, and so
is some (most?) Postscript code.
> I was rather surprised myself by the notion that the release plan had
> been depending on a loophole in the wording in order to excuse
> violating the spirit of the SC.
It's not as clear-cut as you would like it. Our users might be better
served with a new release, even if some of the issues that are still
in woody have not been resolved, instead of delaying it further for
purely political reasons (and not technical ones).
--
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net,
postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.
Reply to: