Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> 
>> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free.  If
>> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
>> >
>> > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give
>> > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications
>> > for him ? 
>> 
>> No.  It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
>> C is often used as source.  Obfuscated C is never used as source.
>> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.
>
> What about a language that is not widely known ? And where do you put the
> limit ? I have to disagree with you about this, the GPL speaks about the
> prefered form of modification, not that it has to be readable by everyone. So,
> if i program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, then this is the
> prefered form of modification, since there is no other form more easily
> modifiable, and this is no problem for the GPL. The same goes for a a set of
> hole-cards carrying some age old program that someone may have in a closet and
> chose to release under the GPL.

No.  If you program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever,
and I ask you to make changes and you do so in that language, *then*
that's the preferred form for modification.  If you say, "I can't!" or
you start rewriting it in a sane language, then you didn't have the
preferred form for modification in the first place.

A card deck is often source.  If it doesn't have the mnemonics printed
on it, and is just raw punches, then it probably isn't -- I'd
certainly rewrite such a program from scratch rather than try to scan
the cards and deal from there.

> The same goes for code that was written direct in assembly, or direct in
> machine language, there is no other version, and it is thus the prefered form
> of modification, so it is fine by the GPL.

The same argument I just made applies to this, too -- sometimes the
source for a program is destroyed.  With a hypothetical perfectly
write-only language, there never was source.  If tomorrow all the C
and Lisp source for Emacs vanishes, that doesn't make the binaries the
new source.

>> Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha!  I gotcha this
>> time, you wascally wegal-poster!  You gave an example, but if I
>> pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible,
>> it makes no sense!"?  Doesn't this game get boring after a while?
>
> Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem
> sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple
> floppies.

Didn't that get mentioned here already?  I thought somebody
volunteered to talk to Apple and see if they'd formally relinquish
copyright to the 20-or-so bytes of magic to boot their old powerpcs?

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu