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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> > Where are you quoted the words "preferred form for modification" from?

Of course, but that only applies to GPL'd documents.  It is certainly
true that a bitmap font (unless it was created *as* a bitmap font
originally) can't be part of a GPL'd program.

But that isn't the issue here.

> > I can't find them anywhere in the Social Contract or the DFSG.
> It's the definition of "source code" that makes the most sense.

We are not under an obligation to have a rigid definition of "source

The GPL, because it is a license, must try to have a single and
unavoidable definition.  It therefore should err on the side of being
more restrictive in its definition of "source code", to make it harder
for people to get around its provisions.

But the DFSG, because it is not a license, need not worry about such
things.  We can say "source code", and then do what seems best to us
in each particular case.  We have no obligation to have one single
definition of the term that is rigidly applied to every situation.

So is Ted saying "this ought to be our definition of source code" (in
which case, it isn't now)?  Or is he saying "this is our definition,
and we should apply it" (but then where do we adopt it)?

Reply to: