On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:42:58 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
>
> > But in the case of the photographer Laura, if she thinks (in good
> > faith) that she has the JPEG only, then JPEG is her preferred form
> > for modification. When she finds out that another format existed,
> > she may or may not change her mind about what is her preferred form
> > for modification. In this case source code may change format.
>
> I think basing a definition that strictly on internal psychological
> properties of the author is going to lead to madness. It is not easily
> observable and may cause the status of a work to fluctuate
> unpredictably between free and non-free as the author changes his
> mind.
What you say here is a fair concern, and I agree that following too
closely all changes of author's mood is unreasonable.
On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that allows it
to change form: see my Fortran<->C example.
>
> Note that the GPL does not define that it is the author that does the
> preferring.
Yes, but the author's opinion (more precisely the last modifier's one)
counts as he/she is the one who actually modifies or modified the work
and allowing him/her to translate from a language to another one is
really important, IMO.
> The "what would the author do" principle is good for
> defining the easy cases where no further analysis is necessary:
>
> 1) On one side, if the author deliberately refuses to let us have and
> distribute the form of the work _he_ keeps around for the purposes
> of editing it later, then we should not consider the work free.
Indeed. This is my primary concern and is what I was trying to address
when I talked about preferred form for modification and its possible
changes.
>
> 2) Conversely, we cannot reasonably accuse the author of releasing
> his work under non-free conditions if he *does* give us every form
> he himself used to create it, and allows us to distribute them
> under otherwise free conditions.
I agree entirely, but with a
s/used to create it/uses to modify it/
Let me (try to) clarify what I mean.
Suppose that J. Random Hacker initially generates a work by using some
special tool (a non-free tool that generates images representing
fractals, for instance); then he goes on modifying it with normal
manipulation tools (The Gimp, for instance).
What is source code in this case?
Does it include the special tool?
I don't think it does: that is the preferred *tool* for *creating* the
initial version of the work, not the preferred *form* for
*modification*.
Source code is the work in the format used for making modifications to
it.
>
> Between these two applications of the rule is a grey area. It is not a
> particularly large grey area, but it is there, and pretending that it
> doesn't exist at all (say, by clinging to an interpretation that says
> we must keep mind-probing the author at intervals to find out whether
> the work stays free) will not help anybody. As with other grey areas
> we have to fall back to other and more fuzzy criteria here, such as:
> "Which form would a _reasonable_ person with the skills to understand
> and appreciate the work prefer for modifying?". This seems to be one
> of the points Matthew is making, and I think he is right in making
> that particular point.
My only concern with this approach is: what do we mean by 'reasonable'?
If someone takes Linux 2.6.11 and translates it in assembly (the whole
kernel? most people would call him/her 'unreasonable'!), then modifies
it (in assembly!) and distributes the result (as assembly code), do you
think that he/she is violating kernel hackers' copyright?
I would think that the result is distributed in the preferred form
modification (preferred at least by the last modifier, and possibly by
other people that may be considered 'unreasonable').
In other words, I think it's OK.
>
> (Which doesn't mean that I in any way agree with his apprarent
> attempts to use that point as a lever to shoehorn works that fail
> condition (1) above into Debian main).
Here I definitely agree with you.
--
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:
pgpwQ9wB6M9Qh.pgp
Description: PGP signature