Re: What do you guys think about #244276?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Martin Quinson wrote:
> #244276 is a RC bug against a litteral program (tex4ht). The
> question is to know whether distributing a preprocessed source file
> is a source code obfuscation, and thus a obstruction to the source
> code modification or whatever. In other word, does the DFSG allows
> such thing?
Distributing a preprocessed source file is ok if that's what upstream
distributes. However, we should also be distributing the unprocessed
source file in the orig.tar.gz; as that is how Eitan himself modifies
the code.[1][2]
> My personal opinion is that the source is not voluntary obfuscated
> since the goal is not to prevent other people from using it, but to
> let the upstream developer organize as he likes.
That's almost certainly true. However, end users need to have the same
access to source code as the original author in order to satisfy the
constraints of DFSG §2. [Baring a significant reason to use a
different definition, we typically consider source code to be the
"prefered form for modification."]
As always, if there are further questions, or -legal or myself can be
of any assistance in helping resolve this situation, do not hesitate
to ask.
Don Armstrong
1: "All my editing work is done in the literate programs." in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=244276&msg=24
2: If I were the package maintainer, I'd also want to be able to build
from upstream source just in case I had to fix a debian specific
problem and upstream was unreachable. If possible, the build scripts
should also be included.
s--
Grimble left his mother in the food store and went to the launderette
and watched the clothes go round. It was a bit like colour television
only with less plot.
-- Clement Freud _Grimble_
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: