On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:11:58 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: > 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. For the record, I agree with Don Armstrong here. Source code for a work is the preferred form for making modification to it. IMO, the question "preferred by whom?" should be answered to by replying "by the one who actually modifies and maintains that particular branch (or fork) of the work". The upstream maintainer is the one who actually modifies the work as you get it, and thus is the one who shows by practice which form he/she really prefers for the purpose of modifying it. Of course, if upstream lies, there's a problem. But this is not a flaw of the source code definition. There are many issues with liars: for instance, what if upstream lies when he/she states that some piece of code included in the work is his/her creation? What if upstream lies when he/she states that some piece of external code he/she incorporated into the work was available under a given (compatible) license? BTW, I'm not commenting on the particular issue at hand (that is to say, on the ITP'd work of bug #402650), because I have not seen the code under discussion. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/releas-o-meter.html Try our amazing Releas-o-meter! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpvTJJBQlC6K.pgp
Description: PGP signature