Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
Francesco Poli dijo [Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:57:39PM +0200]:
> > > but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code.
> >
> > ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of
> > considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under
> > the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a
> > legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of
> > something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something
> > even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This
> > should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability.
>
> I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without
> making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the
> true permission to redistribute, as the license requires
> re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they
> do not have it in the first place.
Well, where does the source code requirement of the GPL come from? I'd
say, based on the FSF's famous four liberties, that quite probably
from the conjunction of "freedom to learn" and "freedom to
modify". For a C program (that is, FSF's initial area of interest) to
be learnable and modifiable, you clearly need the source code.
Now, music is not learnt directly through its sources (i.e. a MIDI
file and the used samples). And it can be meaningfully modified. So,
yes, we talk about a field where "modifiability" has many gradients. I
agree that the OGG files are quite possibly not the "prefered form of
modification" (specially for any synthetized music - I don't know
Wesnoth or its music).
My take on this would be, the Debian maintainer responsible for a
given program should ask its upstream for something that qualifies as
source, but if upstream refuses (or just says it does no longer exist
— Effectively the same), continue to distribute what we have.
> There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make
> it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just
> executable programs.
> Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images
> must include source code.
Right. The problem is the definition of source code.
Reply to: