On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 01:08:16AM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > Is an application not distributable by Debian if it does not include the > > source XML of a manual, or the source EPS of an image file, or the > > source waveform of a mp3, etc etc, ad absurdum? Where does the cutoff > > of practicality between software and supporting materials end? > > And as people keep pointing out, we need the source for most of these for > the same reasons we need the source for software. I agree. However, DFSG#2 does not support (or contradict) your argument. > What happens if you want to make any change to that MP3? You need to have > the original WAV file, especially if you're going to need to recompress it. Nitpick: Only if you need lossless recompression. The output is still valid, it's just not as good of quality as if you had the source. > No one is debating over the fine edges here; nobody is complaining about > files that music and graphic files that go through several forms and get > changes made in each. But we need the source in practice for non-programs > as much as programs. Then I suggest modifying DFSG to account for that practical need. Without such a modification, I still don't think that argument is a valid basis for removal of useful components of software that are not program material. > Have you ever read the story of Mel, in the Jargon file? Even in the days > of drum memory, only "Real Programmers" wrote code in machine code. To just > assume that they wrote these large binary blobs in machine code instead of > assembly is to make an implausible assumption. Machine code versus an assembler listing is a trivial distinction. We could make up assembler mnemonics and a program to assemble a "source" into the current binary blobs that we have. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature