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

Re: Design Science License (in freevo)



On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:29:15 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > I see one possible issue with this license: clause 3(a) states
> > 
> > | (a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed
> > | under the terms of this License; or
> > 
> > while the other two options are non-free (just as in the GNU GPL).
> > 
> > Option (a) seems to force distributors of the Object Form to *include*
> > Source Data, rather than to *accompany* it with Source Data (compare
> > with GNU GPL v2, clause 3a).
> > Does this mean that Source Data for DSL'ed works *must* be shipped
> > in Debian binary packages, as well as in Debian source packages?
> > If this is the case, does this restriction comply with the DFSG?
> > It sounds really unpractical at best.
> 
> It seems impractical, but the definition of Object Form and the terms
> for modified versions make it look to me like it's avoidable by loading
> the graphic at run-time instead of compiling it into an executable.

Only if those graphics files are directly loadable from their Source
form.  I don't know the details for the present case, but AFAICT some
formats are not easily loadable from application programs.  Or at
least, modifying the program to do that could be impractical.  As a
consequence, we would have simply moved the impracticality from the
packaging effort to the programming/maintaining effort... 

> Is that good enough?  I think so.

That is to say, you think that it complies with the DFSG, even though
it's impractical.  Did I get it right?  Is this what you mean?

I'm instead concerned that this restriction could fail to meet the DFSG.
I mean: suppose that Source Data for the graphics file is in a form
which is 50 times longer than the Object Form.  Making the source
available (as the GNU GPL would require) is the right thing to do:
otherwise recipients cannot fully exercise their freedoms.  But being
compelled to *include* source in the binary package seems too much.
Is it a DFSG-free restriction?


Same disclaimers as usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp2bU6BO66VQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: