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

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

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

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> >If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
>> >not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was
>> >source to begin with.  (I assume this isn't the case, as you said "no
>> >source code is provided", not "no source code exists".)
>> We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all 
>> the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in 
>> the past). 
> So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case?

That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of
Source: the preferred form for modification.  If I use the Gimp to
make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only
remaining "source" forms are the raw inputs and the output.

It's important to retain a proper attitude towards this sort of
decision: the intent of the humans involves really matters.  Whether
they really had the source and now don't, and why that is, matters a
great deal.  It's a very blurry line.

> Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals?

Lack of source is not an issue with the GFDL, non-modifiability is one
of several.


Reply to: