Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> That's, uh, entirely insane.
>
> Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
It's not something that's been well discussed within the project, and I
don't think it's an argument you're going to win. In fact, starting by
filing release critical bugs is likely to ensure that the opposition is
entirely entrenched to begin with. If we're going to have this debate,
then it ought to start by engaging in discussion with the wider
community rather than being another "Debian takes on the world" PR
disaster.
At the moment, we have a great deal of support from the wider community.
We should work with them to change their minds, not start telling them
that their standards of freedom are inadequate. I'm open to being
convinced about the definition of source code we should require, but if
I find an RC bug on any of my packages before we (as a project) have
agreed on one then I'm not going to be very happy.
> [...]
>> No. Autogenerated C is not the preferred form for modification, but
>> nor is it a practical form for modification (in most cases - this is
>> not always true). However, in almost all cases it *is* practical to
>> modify a JPEG.
>
> OK, let's consider another example.
> HTML and plain text are practical form for modification.
> Are they always source code?
Always source code? No. There are cases where they're machine-generated
in such a way that modification is impractical without destroying
function.
> Even when they are generated from DocBook XML (and upstream prefers to
> modify XML)?
Yes, unless it becomes impractical to create certain classes of derived
works that would be practical with the XML.
> I don't think that a form that's practical for modification necessarily
> qualifies as source code. It may be source code (if it's also the
> preferred form for modification), or may not, depending on
> circumstances.
I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this point. If
anything, it's clear that not everyone agrees on any one definition of
source code. We can't simply make pronouncements on which one is correct
- nobody here has that authority.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: