Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
John Goerzen wrote:
>Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
>Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
>drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
King James Bible that's linked into a reader application?
> * How do I make sure I distribute the source code? What IS the source
> code? Is it the TIFFs pre-OCR? Is it the OCR'd text? (These first two
> points speak to DFSG #2 -- how can you distribute something in source code
> and compiled form when it has neither)
The preferred form of modification for a textual version of the bible is
plainly the text, and for a graphical version the images. A picture and
a full description of a picture may contain exactly the same
information, but they're plainly different things with different aims
and so in each case would represent the "source".
>The fact that a point has been made does not mean that it is correct. For
>instance, once again, where is the source code and executable? Where is our
>compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822?
If I modify RFC822 (or 2822, or whatever) to describe an SMTP-based
mechanism for washing machine control and accompany it with an
application that speaks my modified protocol, I think there's a
compelling interest in being able to distribute it.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: