Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

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

Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
code". Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source
code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to
modify.

>> 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 classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are
highly limited.

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