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

Re: more evil firmwares found

On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 10:01:55PM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> The "preferred form of modification" is not part of policy.  It is only
> a convention spurred by the GPL.

It is the closest thing to a functional definition of "source" that has
been proposed so far.  If you disagree, please stop with the "we didn't
agree on that!" and actually state your objections to it.  I find it
works well for a lot of varying types of data.

> If decisions are to be made using that
> criterion as a basis, it has to be part of policy.

You're claiming that all decisions must be based on explicit policy?  I
know of no official definition of "source" in any Debian policy, so you
appear to be claiming that Debian can't make decisions about DFSG#2 at

> Ob duh.  The question is whether DFSG#2 applies to everything in Debian
> or not.  Besides a lot of personal opinions, nobody has shown me what is
> required to interpret the word "program" as being equivalent to
> "software", besides Herbert Xu's post, which pushes the borders of what
> is practical or intended.  But if everyone really wants to go that
> route...

If you really want to argue semantics and interpretations, feel free to mail
Bruce Perens and ask him.  I don't think the answer is critical, though.
The deciding question should be "is it in the best interests of the project
and its users to require source for all software, or just programs?", and
not "which was the original intent?"  I think the former isn't all that
interesting (though the basis for that intent might be).

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: