Re: please release sarge instead of removing binary firmware
Evan Prodromou <email@example.com> writes:
> Why are we deciding that the source code released by the copyright
> holder -- usually hex-encoded binary in C -- isn't the preferred
> source format? Can't we just get some kind of assurance from the
> copyright holder that, yes, that gigantic C array is their preferred
> source version?
I think the answer generally given to this question (and yes, it's been
asked many times) is that you can't just declare that some arbitrary form
is the "preferred form." You have to think what a court would do in
trying to determine the preferred form, which is probably to ask an
impartial expert to make a judgement -- and he's going to cut right
through any bullshit thrown up merely for the purpose of evading the GPL.
IOW, it has to _really_ be the preferred form, which is basically whatever
the author usually uses when they want to make changes.
And I suspect a hex-encoded binary embedded in a C file ain't it.
[|nurgle|] ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
will make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt] nurg, that's the goal