On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be > > > distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by > > > upstream for making modifications to it) is kept secret and not > > > available? > > I think it's sucky and we're better off distributing the LaTeX source > > as well if we can get access to it, but I'm not convinced that this > > should be a release-critical bug. I simply do not believe that LaTeX > > -> PDF conversion constitutes a technical barrier to modification to > > the same degree as compilation of C/C++/Java source to native > > assembly/bytecode, because the amount of higher-level markup > > information that's lost differs by an order of magnitude. > So it's fine if someone distributes C code after stripping all the > comments and renaming all variables to non-significant short > identifiers? No, it's not; but I'm not going to argue gray area analogies like this, because they're just not relevant under the DFSG. The DFSG says that for programs, we must have access to the source. It does not say that we have to have access to the source for things that are not programs. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature