Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
>> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
>> > ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
>> > rejected on the basis of a *source* requirement (as distinct from a
>> > licensing issue), then I think we have a problem.
>> Well, we ftpmasters and assistants routinely REJECT packages
>> containing binary components without source, eg. PDF documentation. We
>> base this policy on the DFSG as explained in
>> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 which very clearly states
>> that documentation needs to comply with the DFSG.
> The resolution states that GFDL licence does not fit for main, mainly because
> it has invariant sections, which are not *modifiable*.
> Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
> understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
> distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations for
> such a decision.
A PDF consists of a turing complete programming language, so any
PDF file is really an executable program, interpreted by the pdf
interpreter. Seems like asking for the sources would be valid for PDF
and postsript programs, een if all the program does is to render things
into bitmap formats suitable for readers.
Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited by statute in Barber, North
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C