Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that allows it
> to change form: see my Fortran<->C example.
No, I specifically reject your claim that the "source code" of the
existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply because
the author changes his mind after the fact.
>> 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.
It's important, but it does not trump everything else in cases where
it would lead to nonsense.
>> 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/
So you think that if the author never modified the work after
initially creating it, and does not plan to do so, the work can be
free without us having anything source-like? In that case "every form
he himself uses to modify it" is an empty set, and under your revised
statement the work would be trivially free.
> 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?
According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then we're in the grey
area where we have to apply common sense or other rules of thumb.
>> 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?".
> My only concern with this approach is: what do we mean by 'reasonable'?
We will find to reach a consensus about a what a reasonable meaning of
"reasonable" is in each case.
Sorry, but we _cannot_ encapsulate our concept of freedom into a
mathematical bright-line test that can _always_ be applied without
judgement calls. There _will_ always be boundary case where we need to
actually _think_ and apply some common sense to find a reasonable
solution.
--
Henning Makholm "The trouble is that the chapter is entirely
impenetrable. Its message is concealed behind not just
thickets of formalism, but hedges, woods, and forests of
formalism. There are whole pages with not even a paragraph break."
Reply to: