Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Theodore Ts'o <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts.
> People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
> editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
> if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
> propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
We do not have a definition of "source code" in the DFSG. You wanted
to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug.
A reasonable definition might be (*might* be) something like whatever
is necessary to usefully and constructively take advantage of the
freedom to modify the thing.
For binary programs, the ability to edit the file with binhex is *not*
an ability to usefully or constructively modify the thing.
But for a font, the ability to tweak the bitmap might well be, because
there is nothing more to a rendered font than the bitmap; for a
binary program, there is a logical structure to the instructions which
it is exceedingly difficult to change without the higher level
language from which it was generated.
So this is an *excellent* reason that we should not apply the GPL's
definition of source code.