Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:48:15 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> > > > file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> > > > to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
> > >
> > > Preferable by whom?
> >
> > The upstream maintainer. Whatever form(s) of the work the upstream
> > maintainer actually uses to modify the work is the prefered form for
> > modification.
>
> I think that the GPL would have use much more specific language if the
> author's intent had been to require the form of modification in use by the
> original author. It doesn't take a law degree to write:
>
> "The source code for a work means the form of the work used by the
> original author for making modifications."
This actually has other problems, and it's a great thing the license
doesn't say this. I've been very careful not to use the words
"original author" because it's quite possible that the prefered form
for modification could change over time.
> Since that language was not used, and instead the highly flexible
> term "preferred" was used, I suggest the GPL is far more accepting
> of modifications to the distributed source than is being granted in
> this conversation.
In retrospect, I can see what I wrote being interpreted like that, but
it wasn't what I intended. I really mean upstream in the sense that
it's used in Debian packaging, where it means whoever is modifying and
distributing modifications that we use and distribute further. If
upstream is holding back information from us that they actually use to
make modifications, then we aren't distributing the prefered form for
modification.
> I had always taken the clause to mean that between distributing a
> JPG or an XCF, that the XCF was preferred because it provided
> greater quantitative ability to modify the source.
It's ideal, sure; but if the upstream author doesn't use XCF to modify
the JPG, and a XCF never existed, then it isn'tthe prefered form even
if editing a JPG is annoying. [I should note that I differ on this
interpretation from Eben Moglen and (probably) RMS, as they have
argued that commentless sourcecode, even if it is the form that
upstream uses isn't the prefered form for modification... but their
reasoning has never been satisfactory to me, and more to the point,
the least they'd expect is the form that upstream actually uses.]
Don Armstrong
--
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot
possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to
get at or repair.
-- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: