Re: Social Contract GR's effect on sarge
Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:39:37AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:38:29AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > Furthermore, any bitmap rendering of a vector drawing has to be
>> > removed if the vector drawing is not available, and all Postscript
>> > files without source code have to be removed. This audit is a
> [Postscript files can be source code; it is a Turing-complete
> programming language, albeit with lousy support for IO, and we do ship
> several such programs]
Debian also ships C source code which has been obfuscated or comes
from some kind of transpiler (see tex4ht). I don't consider this
source code in the DFSG sense. Some of this source code is as open to
modification as compiled binary code from a practical point of view.
> "Source" is usually interpreted like the GPL's "preferred form for
Exactly, and a bitmap image often isn't such a preferred form, and so
is some (most?) Postscript code.
> I was rather surprised myself by the notion that the release plan had
> been depending on a loophole in the wording in order to excuse
> violating the spirit of the SC.
It's not as clear-cut as you would like it. Our users might be better
served with a new release, even if some of the issues that are still
in woody have not been resolved, instead of delaying it further for
purely political reasons (and not technical ones).
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net,
postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.