Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
>> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
>> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
>> source files are TeX documents.
> Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
> means by source code?
I've always defined the source to be whatever the original author used
to create the files I'm looking at. The phrase "preferred form for
modification" and the spirit of FLOSS as defined by the FSF and
Debian/OSI has always indicated to me equality of access to
information forms. That is, IMO the source code is whatever form the
author preferred to modify the work. So an ELF executable could be
source code if it was written by hand instead of generated using GCC.
This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have
rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were
generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ:
Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do
not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation.
As to the legal definition, anyone know? I personally doubt it has
ever been defined.