Le ven 25 août 2006 08:51, Don Armstrong a écrit : I second that proposition > ===================================================================== > > The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the > works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same > information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As > such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the > availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a > copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) > to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the > whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and > copyright holders. > > Different types of works have different forms of source. For some > works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be > digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was > preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no > longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent > possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical > aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running > upon ones computer. > > Recognizing this, the Debian Project: > > A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian > system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of > whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary > processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, > works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream > developer would actually use for modification. > > B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute > the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would > actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed > in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be > made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project > resources. > > C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or > software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose > source is not available by making such works available in > non-free and providing project resources to the extent that > Debian is capable of doing so. > > D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is > not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for > modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can > exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their > hardware. > > > 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio > recordings. > > 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to "technically possible" > or "possible for some party" as opposed to "legally possible for > Debian". We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to > require the distribution of physical objects. > > ===================================================================== > > > Obvious points for discussion: > […] > 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; > however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a > hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their > computers. I've none, but would second a proposal without it as well if that's needed. > 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to > compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, > we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the > purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 > requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a > position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing > to have from our users and our perspective. and I also feel that's needed. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp5VjrogoYiQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature