On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: > There's two main issues here. > > 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of > modification? IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source code" (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2 mandates the inclusion of source code. > > 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 presence of other bugs does not excuses us from fixing a bug when we find it out. That said, I didn't have time to reread the old thread about the nv driver, and I don't recall what the conclusion was... :-( > 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. A binary executable can be reasonably modified with a hex editor (warez dudes do exactly that, in order to remove anti-copy or registration mechanisms from proprietary programs). > 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. I belong to that class of people... In other words, I'm sorry to say this, but I disagree. > > 2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of > modification? > > Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics. If the graphics are GPL'd (as in this case), I would have said "surely". > However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's > interpretation of the preferred form of modification One should show by practice what is his/her preferred form for modification: simply stating "I prefer modifying the binary executable with a hex editor" while you don't do it (either because you don't modify at all, or because you modify the C++ code and then recompile) should not be considered enough to say that the binary executable *is* the source code... > and whether the > GPLed code is a derived work of the graphics or not. If the artwork is itself GPL'd, asking what is derived from what seems to be useless... > 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. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpT329N4itXt.pgp
Description: PGP signature