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

Re: Migration of non-free packages to testing



On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:46:08AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> Although source code is required by DFSG (2)... rather unambiguously.

Mmmm, I forgot about that.

> It's possible we could play some semantic games and define something
> else as source code.

At present we don't define it at all.

I think the GNU GPL's definition of "source code" is the best one I've
seen.  ("The preferred form for making changes to the work.")

> It's possible that DFSG (2) is too dogmatic in its phrasing, too..

I don't think so.  If Amstrad lost track of the source code to the ZX
Spectrum ROMs, then there are two possibilities:

1) There is no preferred form for making changes, and there thus is no
source code.  This in and of itself would mean it's non-DFSG-free.
2) There are people willing to hack on the machine code, or disassemble
it and attempt to recreate a more traditional form of source code for
it, in which case that is the preferred form for modification, the
package has source code.  That means it might be DFSG-free (if it meets
the other criteria).

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;
branden@debian.org                 |        fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck;
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |        umount;sleep

Attachment: pgpMFf3lPTTVT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: