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

preferred form for modification (was: Bug#817092: this browserified)

[please do not CC me]

* Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [160711 11:17]:
> Marvin Renich writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#817092:  Bug#817092: this browserified"):
> > One fundamental purpose...
> I have no idea why you think this is relevant.

I apologize for not changing to subject to make it clear that I am not
in disagreement with the general discussion about this bug nor am I in
disagreement that the original source used to generate the
"browserified" file (along with the program used to generate it) must be
in Debian.  My point was that I disagreed with the general application
of one specific statement made by Jonas.

Upon re-reading Jonas' statement, it has become clear to me that he was
discussing what Debian is willing to distribute, not what the license
says Debian is allowed to distribute.  Jonas, I apologize for
misconstruing your meaning, and I retract my objection to your statement
in this context.  This distinction is important, and I should have seen
it in that message.

My message was triggered by the phrasing of Jonas' statement that was
very similar to past discussions over the meaning of "preferred form for
modification", especially in the context of the GPL.  In these
discussions it is sometimes asserted that, for purposes of the GPL and
other similar licenses, the phrase must be interpreted in terms of
upstream's preferred form.  However, neither the GPL itself, nor GNU's
published philosophy[1] support this; rather they contradict this
interpretation.  That part of the GPL is entirely about what a recipient
must give to a second level recipient.  Nowhere does the GPL mention
anything about giving changes back to upstream.


[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Reply to: