On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but
will be release-critical bugs post-Sarge.
> However, even
> ignoring that, I think your definition leads to some strangeness. It
> suggests that a JPEG is DFSG-free in and of itself in some cases, but
> that the existence of a lossless representation of that picture
> renders the JPEG non-free unless it's distributed with that lossless
> representation. If I delete the only copy of the lossless picture, is
> the JPEG now source?
>
> If a JPEG can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances,
> I'm confused as to why it's not always good enough.
OK, think of a program.
I give you a file written in C, that can be compiled by gcc into the
binary executable.
Am I giving you the source code?
Yes, in most cases, I am.
But what if the program is a parser generated by Bison?
Now the C code is not source code anymore.
The grammar description is the real source code.
If C code can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, why
is it not always good enough?
Because it's not always the "preferred form for modification", that's
why!
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpbOORfJtpzJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature