Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> wrote:

> So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their
> freedom.  But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of
> "good enough" that we know of is "the preferred form for modification"
> -- generally the form preferred by the author.  If you're still arguing
> about that then please provide an alternate definition.

Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be
reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications that
they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work may
have several forms that meet this criterion.

If we apply this to a binary application, we find that the C code is the
source. If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find
that the photograph is the source. If we apply this to a
machine-generated picture that is interpreted by another application, we
find that the application to generate the picture is required.

The form that the author used to create a work should be irrelevent to
freeness. A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the
author wrote and maintains it in a hex-editor. The author's preferred
form for modification is a good metric, but not the be-all and end-all
of whether a work provides sufficient freedom.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org