Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0
@ 26/09/2005 17:31 : wrote Francesco Poli :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit
>> :
>>> > 2. The person making the modifications must be
>>> > identified.
>>>
>>> Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
>>> against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary
>>> for Free Software.
>> "Identified" doesn't mean it should be identified by a real name.
>> A pseudonym is perfectly acceptable.
>
> As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym
> "identifies" a person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I
> would say. It builds a 'fake' identity, but hides the real
> identity of its owner.
>
> IMHO, it's not so clear that a pseudonym would be perfectly
> acceptable...
>
> [...]
>>> Substitute "source format", in the following paragraph, by "in
>>> the format the original author chose to write and modify the
>>> work OR in the format the derivative work's author chose to
>>> write and modify the work OR in any format that could
>>> demonstrably be translated back and forth to one of those
>>> formats without loss of information."
>> This wording is even worse than "source format", IMHO.
>
> Here, Josselin, I agree with you. The best definition of source
> that I know of is the one found in the GPL.
>
We will have to agree on disagreeing, then. :-)
The definition on the GPL (section 3, paragraph 1 [1]) has many
ambiguities, the main one IMHO being:
"Preferred form for making modifications". Preferred by whom?
Preferred by the upstream author? Preferred by some mid-stream
modifier (Debian, for instance)? Preferred by the last downstream
modifier (the user, making customizations)? Where does this leave
binary blobs embedded in kernel sources, for instance?
[1] "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts
used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
that component itself accompanies the executable. "
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: