Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
On 11/07/06 02:19, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> IMO, whenever there's any doubt about which is the preferred form
>> ("preferred by whom?"), we should follow the preferences of the last
>> modifier: if you actually modify a work, you've shown in practice what
>> is your preferred form for modifications (rather than simply claiming in
>> a vacuum what *would* be your preferred form, should you make
>> modifications that you don't actually make!).
> What if a person downloads a GPLed binary and then modifies that
> binary directly?
> Can he/she now distribute *only* the binary under the GPL by saying
> that the binary is his/her "preferred form for modifications".
That person isn't the copyright holder of the original GPL source, so
"the source" is defined by the original author.
On the other hand, the firmware files, "binary blobs" and other parts
of the kernel that are sent by the original copyright holders might
actually be in the "preferred form".
Sometimes this is because the firmware & hex dumps aren't understood
by anyone. Or, they are generated by the software used to design the
chips. In those cases, the firmware is sometimes more like a city map
and can't be built by tools we have available. The "source" in this
case is not even described in languages software engineers normally use.