Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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