Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:58:17PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>My entire point here is that,
>>
>>1. You don't need a .wav "source" for an .ogg "binary"
>>2. You don't need upstream pic "source" for the {png, jpeg, etc.} "binary"
>>3. You don't need some native font format if we have the "binaries"
>>
>>
>
>And I can think of good reasons why I would need all of these
>things. How many times do we have to go through this?
>
>
>>The reason for this is that both are almost identical.
>>
>>
>
>...since fairly often they aren't.
>
>Again, this argument applies equally to programs. We need source for
>all the same reasons.
>
>
>
>From now on I will file RC bugs against *ALL* software not written in
straight C. Why? Because *I* consider that ALL non-C versions of the
software are binary, and I *demand* the source code.
This is *exactly* the same insane position you appear to represent.
I'm cc'ing -legal because I need to know who is right on this. Are we
going to start harassing upstream over "sources" to jpegs and oggs? Or
data, since it is inherently binary and thus non-readable by a human in
raw form, source in itself? That is, if,
1. data format is known, and
2. data is under a free license according to DFSG
then such data is free according to DFSG.
- Adam
--
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature