On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:50:19 +0100 Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi Mathew > > (Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s) Again assuming that this means you and Matthew want to be Cc:ed as well... [...] > > That's perfectly acceptable. Upstream can do whatever they want. > > However, if upstream do not provide the preferred form for > > modification (ie, the unobfuscated version), Debian can not > > distribute it under the terms of the GPL. > > True. But do this mean that Nvidia have actually violated the license > that they have released their software under? Well maybe not as they > may not need to accept the license to actually use their rights... A copyright holder cannot violate the license he/she releases his/her work under: he/she needs *no* copyright license to deal with his/her own work in any manner. The only license violation that could possibly happen is on works someone else holds copyright on. Hence, nVidia could be in violation, *if* and *as long as* their work is based on someone else's GPL'ed work. I don't know if this is the case here... > > As I understand from this, is that it is not enough to know that the > software is licensed under GPL, we must also check every single line > of code (manually) to determine if it is obfuscated or not before we > include it into Debian? Or should we just do this on a best effort > basis, that is file serious bugs when we encounter this. I think the Debian Project should assume that what upstream distributes as "source code" is actually source code (that is to say, the "preferred form for making modifications to the work"), *unless* there is a reason to think otherwise. Please note that IANADD: my personal opinion does not necessarily reflect the one of the DDs. [...] > > If people define source as "the preferred form for modifications" in > > all cases, then there's no place for deliberately obfuscated code > > in Debian. > > That is what the Open Source Definition tell. The open source > definition is only applicable on programs though. But we do not > enforce the usage of the open source definition as far as I know. Or > do we? > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The OSD is completely off-topic here. The Debian Social Contract promises that "Debian will remain 100% free" according to the DFSG. It never speaks about the OSD. > > > There's also arguably no place for works that are only available > > as JPEGs, any flattened image formats, mp3s, PDFs and so on. Right > > now there doesn't seem to be a strong opinion in the project about > > that, but I expect it's a discussion that needs to be had. > > True. The positional statement that clarified was not the winner in > one of our votes: > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 Please note that, according to the proposer of GR-2006-004 (hi Don!), the text of the resolution "very carefully walks the line that the DFSG currently walks"[1]. That is to say, this GR (which however did not pass, as you note) only "restates what is current practice"[1], as far as non-programmatic works and DFSG#2 are concerned. The discussion about source code of non-programmatic works is (unfortunately) still to be had. [1] see the thread that started with http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00185.html -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp4440zaPzLz.pgp
Description: PGP signature