[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> be interpreted as "software".

(To start, in case I'm unclear below, I agree.)

> At least I hope so.  It would be rather ridiculous if documentation
> under the GNU FDL (with invariant sections, just to be sure) is not
> DFSG-compliant, but some BSD-licensed non-editable PDF file is. 8-(

Collossal flamewars around the time of SC2004-003 revolved around the
definition of software, and SC2004-003, as I understand it, made Debian's
interpretation of the word very clear: "everything in Debian is software".

It's depressing that, after we finally finish that massive debate, people
want to start all over again with the word "program", which is just as
ambiguous a word.

So, let's not word-lawyer the DFSG, and instead focus on what's important:
what's good for Debian's users and Free Software.  Figure out if Debian
*should* require source for fonts and graphics.  Debian can easily and
consistently interpret "program" in the DFSG to mean either "executable
stuff" or "all software", and arguments about which should be saying why
their choice is better, not merely saying "I don't care if it's better,
we should do this one because it's my interpretation".

(And, as a final note, modern hinted fonts do, in fact, contain programs.
I only mention this because Andreas, saying "obviously", seems to not know

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: