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

Re: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?

On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:47:47 +0200 Sven Mueller wrote:

> Hi.
> I've read the whole bug log and though I'm not a regular on
> debian-legal, I still would like to add a note to it:
> I don't know what the current upstream does,

That's what should be found out!  ;-)

> but I wonder about one
> thing: The header about the SAP Html Export indicates that the export
> happened on 19.10.2004, about 1.5 years ago. If upstream really makes
> changes in some other format but the HTML (which might still be
> possible), why wasn't the file re-exported after that date?

Maybe because no further modification was made after that date, I don't

> I for one have seen quite a number of documents that were once
> generated or exported from some source format A into some other easily
> modifiable format B. And ever since, they have been kept up to date by
> editing the exported format B files, while the (once original source)
> files in format A lay rotting and are removed at some point
> (sometimes, but not always directly after export). And I know a few
> such documents which still have comments on them indicating that they
> were once exported by some random tool.

Such cases are clear situations where the source code changed form at
some point.
This is really possible and the definition of source found in the GNU
GPL shows such a flexibility.

> So, who can say wether the exported HTML isn't now really the prefered
> point of modification by upstream?

Upstream should state that, whenever it's not clear enough from some
other evidence.

> Did the file change over time,
> though the comment still indicated the same date&time of export?
> Though it's no prerequisit, it would be a hint that upstream is indeed
> directly modifying the HTML files instead of modifying some other
> source and then re-exporting the files.

That would indeed be a useful hint.

> Regards,
> Sven
> PS: I've subscribed to the bug, so no need to CC me on replies.

I am instead a debian-legal subscriber, so no need to Cc: me on replies
as long as debian-legal is a recipient.

    :-(   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: pgpcG0MqxL3kI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: