Re: Source files
Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> writes:
> However, it contains one line
>
> /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...]
>
> which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted.
If it's automatically inserted into that file, that seems to entail the
resulting file is not the source but is instead automatically generated
from the *actual* source.
> Can a generated file be a source at all?
>
> The only definition I know about what is a source is from GPL:
>
> | The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> | making modifications to it.
I would say the test of whether a file is source is whether it can be
described as “the preferred form of the work for making modifications to
it”.
If the preferred form for making modifications is to edit some *other*
file, then re-generate, the generated file is no IMO source for the
purpose of the DFSG.
> The "preferred" in the definition is a bit ambitious -- some people
> may prefer a different form than others.
Do you mean “ambiguous”? If so, I agree. But that ambiguity does not
prevent the definition from being quite useful for deciding cases like
this.
> And, autogenerated lines (like the CVS Id, or the signature in
> debian/changelog) are preferred not not be changed at all by a third
> party. Would that make these files non-source?
The question of “preferred form of the work for making modifications” is
still useful in that case, IMO.
If the file into which the chunk of text is inserted remains the
preferred form for making modifications to the work, then that file is
part of the source form of the work.
> If someone copies a files from somewhere else, and then patches is to
> fits the local needs: Is the patched file a "source"?
Patching results in a *different* work (and, according to your described
provenance, the patches result in a derived work of the prior one).
Is the resulting file still one which would be preferred for making
modifications to that new work? If so, that file is the source for
whatever automatically-generated form of the work (e.g. compiled
binaries) they then produce from that source.
> Someone would probably prefer to have the original file and the patch
> instead
That would not be the source form of the later (derived) work. You have
created, in this scenario, two separate works, each of which has a
distinct source form.
> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
You're right. They're guidelines, and (as you know) the DFSG doesn't
actually refer to the GPL's definition of source.
The current state of copyright law doesn't allow firm, clearly-defined
specifications of what is or is not legal; the law is in many ways
incoherent from a logical perspective.
The ever-changing capabilities of what modifications are feasible and
what works can be combined, and how they can be combined, also thwarts
efforts to make an enduring set of guidelines that remain relevant as
technology changes.
We can only attempt to predict, based on ways copyright cases have been
observed to behave, and based on the published general advice of legal
experts, what are the likely risks and benefits of certain actions.
--
\ “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… |
`\ It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in |
_o__) the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney
Reply to: