Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
>> There's two main issues here.
>>
>> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
>> modification?
>>
>> I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
> with you.
We had a GR that stated that everything in main must include "source
code". That's not the same thing in the slightest.
> I think the last time the nv reference popped up, nobody could confirm
> that the source code has been deliberately obfuscated. It seems to be
> the real thing, but there is not enough public documentation to make
> any modifications which change the way the driver interacts with the
> hardware.
Fine. I'll attempt to obtain confirmation that the obscure hex
constants aren't the original and preferred form for modification.
> I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
> software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
> instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be
> included in main.
Yes, but *WHY* do you think that? Christ. This isn't a difficult
conceptual issue. "I think that source has to be the preferred form of
modification BECAUSE IT IS DAMNIT" is not a convincing argument.
If there existed reasonable ways of modifying Java bytecode to create
new derivative works, then I'd have fewer qualms about shipping Java
bytecode without a compiler. But there aren't, so I do.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: