On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote: [please send replies to the list, as I'm a subscriber and didn't asked to get replies twice; thank you] > Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> > > > On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that > > allows it to change form: see my Fortran<->C example. > > No, I specifically reject your claim that the "source code" of the > existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply because > the author changes his mind after the fact. Perhaps I expressed myself in a misleading way. The source code for already distributed versions will stay the same. What is in a new form, is the source for a more recent version distributed after the author has begun to actually modify Fortran code rather than C. For that version there is no C code from which you can rebuild the executable. And the form the author actually prefers when further modifications are needed is Fortran code. > > >> Note that the GPL does not define that it is the author that does > >the> preferring. > > > Yes, but the author's opinion (more precisely the last modifier's > > one) counts as he/she is the one who actually modifies or modified > > the work and allowing him/her to translate from a language to > > another one is really important, IMO. > > It's important, but it does not trump everything else in cases where > it would lead to nonsense. Of course. > > >> 2) Conversely, we cannot reasonably accuse the author of releasing > >> his work under non-free conditions if he *does* give us every > >> form he himself used to create it, and allows us to distribute > >> them under otherwise free conditions. > > > I agree entirely, but with a > > > s/used to create it/uses to modify it/ > > So you think that if the author never modified the work after > initially creating it, and does not plan to do so, the work can be > free without us having anything source-like? No, if the author never modified the work and does not plan to do so, he/she simply does not give any indication on which is his/her preferred form for modification. In that case, I think we should ask: "which form would you prefer, should you make modifications to the work?". The question may be asked to the actual author or to other people with similar skills. > In that case "every form > he himself uses to modify it" is an empty set, and under your revised > statement the work would be trivially free. Maybe it's clearer with a s/used to create it/uses or would use to modify it/ > > > Suppose that J. Random Hacker initially generates a work by using > > some special tool (a non-free tool that generates images > > representing fractals, for instance); then he goes on modifying it > > with normal manipulation tools (The Gimp, for instance). > > What is source code in this case? > > Does it include the special tool? > > According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of > the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not > tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then we're in the grey > area where we have to apply common sense or other rules of thumb. I agree with you that it would be far better if we could get the special tool (and even better if the special tool were DFSG-free!), but would it be *required* for the generated work to be DFSG-free? We have to judge: in most cases my bet is that providing the special tool is optional (an interesting and useful optional, but still not mandatory). > > >> As with other grey areas we have to fall back to other and more > >> fuzzy criteria here, such as: "Which form would a _reasonable_ > >> person with the skills to understand and appreciate the work prefer > >> for modifying?". > > > My only concern with this approach is: what do we mean by > > 'reasonable'? > > We will find to reach a consensus about a what a reasonable meaning of > "reasonable" is in each case. > > Sorry, but we _cannot_ encapsulate our concept of freedom into a > mathematical bright-line test that can _always_ be applied without > judgement calls. There _will_ always be boundary case where we need to > actually _think_ and apply some common sense to find a reasonable > solution. Of course a clear-cut criterion is too hard (or maybe impossible) to find. The "preferred form for modification" definition seems to work well in all cases I can think of: obviously, there are cases in which we must be careful when applying it, but it works anyway. -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpfI0yvjP_u0.pgp
Description: PGP signature