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

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean "the form closest to source that still
exists" if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
"preferred form for modification" as "preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
form for modification has been lost".

In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has
lost the source.  Asking them for it is probably the best thing to
do next.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: