Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> As you may remember, the context was whether something is the
> source code. When considering whether it is source, is it more
> important what a debian user can reasonably modify, or should
> more weight be given to what has already been used to modify it?
That's the point, yes, though I'm not (quite) claiming either of those.
> The odds are that we always have something that it is possible
> to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you
> think we need to worry about that and ignore upstream?
Because taking upstream's preferred form for modification leads us to
believe that it's possible for large binary objects to be source, even
if nobody other than the author can be realistically expected to modify
them. You can argue that that meets the GPL, but I don't think you can
reasonably argue that it's free software. The DFSG requirement for
source is inspired by one of the FSF's four freedoms:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Providing something that is the preferred form for modification does not
necessarily make it possible to study how the program works or to adapt
it to your needs.
> [...]
>> > Again, I am seriously worried that I agree with Andrew Suffield. :-/
>> Why does this worry you?
>
> Why do you ask why that worries me?
Because I'm interested in knowing. It seemed an odd thing for you to
say.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: