[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG v2 Draft #5

On 25-Jan-99 Raul Miller wrote:
> This seems to conflict, in scope, with 1.1 -- I'll pose a couple other
> examples where I'm not sure about 1.1 once I get there.

No.  This document is meant to cover software... not itself.  Some of your
other comments seem to try to make the same application.

>> 1.1. Application
>> ----------------
>>      These guidelines are intended to be applied to software programs, that
>>      is, machine-readable programs that instruct a computer how to perform
>>      specific tasks, its source code, and any other items included with the
>>      original source distribution.
> So a set of GIMP bump maps is not software?  How about wave tables which
> represent midi instruments for some sound card?

If they're not part of a software package, no... atleast not how it was
written.  The main idea was to keepdocuments (such as this one), specs, logo
s and such from being covered.  If there are things that you think SHOULD be
covered that wouldn't be under this paragraph, let me know.

> can be sound samples.  The point being that the difference between code
> and data depends on your point of view, and that as technology is developed

Right, that's why we want to define a line between software and
data/non-software.  (We do include data that's part of the original software
package). That line can be shifted, if you have some suggestion.  One of the
entanglements we wanted to avoid here is the idea of "what is the source of a
spec-document or what is the source of a jpeg". 

> If we're going to have some kinds of files which can be redistributed
> without meeting these guidelines, I'd prefer to have them explicitly
> described -- and then we still need guidelines for what kind of license
> we expect on those files.
Yes.  We probably need something on non-software, too, but we'd have resolve
some of the questions like, "what is source".  That's one of the debates I
remember about GPL'd documents.

[re: the term use.  I got a little cut-happy]
> This gets confusing if you consider modification and distribution as
> forms of use.
The terms modification, distribution and derivation are all explicitly used. 
That *could* be stated somewhere but is it needed to be?

>> 2.2. Source Code 
>> -----------------
>>      Source code must be freely available.
> Is this a recursive reference to this document?

Not really.  We're trying to say "the user has to be able to get the source
without being charged."  Much of the rest of the document here that deals with
source code, states source code.

> [I think the point is that the source code for a DFSG-free executable
> must also be DFSG-free.  However, there's no definition for source code,
> so cases like the original source is compiled into unreadable C are
> going to be ambiguous.]

Sure there is... check the 4th section.

>> 3.1. Notices of Authorship 
>> ---------------------------
>>      <during execution of the software -- removed. Will this affect any
>>      current licenses?>
> This seems to imply that the emacs license can't prohibit someone
> from removing its copyright display at load time.  [Because that's
> where the >>unmodified<< software displays copyrights.]
Umm.... that *could* be interpreted that way... I don't know the emacs license
so I can't comment beyond that.

>> 3.3. License of Derived Works 
>> ------------------------------
>>      The license can require modified and derived software be distributed
>>      under the same license or the general requirement "any compatible
>>      license."
> You might want to define "compatible".  [Remember how the old Qt license
> said it was compatible with the GPL, even though the converse wasn't
> true?]
I know.  This is the worse section of the document right now and we're all
still wrangling over it.

* http://benham.net/index.html                                     <><  *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
*    Darren Benham     * Version: 3.1                                   *
*  <gecko@benham.net>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
*       KC7YAQ         * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++   *
*  <gecko@debian.org>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+                            *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*

Attachment: pgptiPfZriptu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: