Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
> distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
> is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify
> the JPEG. In some cases, this will just be a JPEG. In others, it will
> be an XCF, SVG or something else entirely.
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian. However, even ignoring
that, I think your definition leads to some strangeness. It suggests
that a JPEG is DFSG-free in and of itself in some cases, but that the
existence of a lossless representation of that picture renders the JPEG
non-free unless it's distributed with that lossless representation. If I
delete the only copy of the lossless picture, is the JPEG now source?
If a JPEG can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, I'm
confused as to why it's not always good enough.
> While there may be a better definition of source code than the
> "prefered form for modification," I haven't seen it yet.
I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that
the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We
don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we
have the DFSG because they allow people to engage in practical
activities. If a piece of software allows someone to assert their
freedom to perform those acts without onerous restrictions, then it
ought to be free from a DFSG standpoint.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org