Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

There's two main issues here.

1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?

I don't believe so, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this isn't the
current situation (see the nv driver in the X.org source tree, for
instance). The DFSG require the availability of source code, and it
seems reasonable to believe that anything that can be reasonably
modified falls into that catagory. The graphics are available in a form
that can be modified with free tools (the .xpm files).

However, I know that other people disagree with my viewpoint on this.

2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification?

Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics.
However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's
interpretation of the preferred form of modification and whether the
GPLed code is a derived work of the graphics or not. On the other hand,
if we accept my opinion on point (1), even if we need to include the
pov-ray models we are not required to build from them in order to
satisfy the DFSG. 

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org