Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > 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?
The definition of source code in the GPL is "the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it", and this definition is generally accepted by
Debian developers. For many ROMs and older computer programs, people can and
do frequently make changes by editing the binary. There are probably more people
who can change a Nintendo ROM by binary hacking then who could change GNAT by
editing source code. If this is all we have, and people are working at this
level, I see no reason to exclude it.
> Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals?
If we were talking in a resturant, I might throw my drink at you. Those threads
are a cesspool that are basically devoid of new argument; there's no need to
drag this thread in there. If you want to continue an eternal flamewar, then
go ahead, but at least let other discussions go in in debian-legal.
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search