On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:46:56 +0200 Markus Koschany wrote: > On 10.10.2016 23:54, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > So in conclusion, I am still convinced that the Debian Project must > > distribute the source (for works included in packages in Debian main) > > anyway, regardless of how permissive is the license. > > I have commented on this bug report because I feel that both you and the > original bug reporter don't represent all of Debian (you are not even a > Debian developer but you act like one on debian-legal) and I dispute the > severity of this bug report.
First off, it's true I am not a Debian Developer (although I am an external contributor), but I don't act like a DD on debian-legal. I act like a debian-legal regular (who has analyzed licenses and software freedom issues for some 12 years) and I often underline that what I express is my own personal opinion... Secondly, whether I am or I am not a DD is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether I am wrong or right on something. People may be right or wrong, regardless of their Debian Project membership status. > > You said: > DFSG#2 requires the availability of source code. > > That is correct. Good. > But an ogg file is not a program. I am convinced that this is irrelevant. I guess you would say that a PDF file containing a manual is not a program. Nonetheless, the already quoted FTP Masters REJECT-FAQ states that source availability is required for PDF files in the documentation, among other things. > We are not required to ship a "source" for it, I instead think the Debian Project should ship source for everything in main. > especially if we don't know how the actually > source format looks like. The source form may vary on a case-by-case basis. > There are many authors and content providers > who license their artwork under the GPL but they don't release some > other (higher) form of this artwork. There are also many people who violate the GPL in many different ways. I don't think this should be a reason for the Debian Project to give up and distribute works (in main) without making source available, regardless of the permissiveness of their licenses. > Granted, the GPL is a poor choice for licensing artwork I respectfully disagree on this, as well. I think the GNU GPL is perfectly fit for licensing artwork. The more I see people who advocate the distribution of artwork without source, the more I become convinced that the GPL is needed in that area... > but it does not make it unsuitable for Debian if > the original author decides to provide her artwork in a lossy data format. The point is not whether the data format is lossy or lossless. The point is: is the source (== preferred form for making modifications to the work) available? If source is not made available, a GPL-licensed work is not legally distributable, while on the other hand a permissively-licensed work may still be legally distributable, but should *not* be shipped in Debian main anyway. > > Coming back to the actual issue at hand: If files have been wrongly > credited, then this issue should be fixed. However there is no > requirement to provide some kind of "source" if it doesn't exist. A source form always exists. It's the preferred form for making modifications to the work. I wrote an essay about this topic: https://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissource.html > If > there is some kind of "source" that still exists for the GPL licensed > files, please include it in the source tarball (because it would be the > easiest solution for this bug report). If this situation is impossible > to resolve, please get in touch with me again (@maintainer). If the author of the GPL-licensed files keeps the source secret, he/she should be got in touch with and be persuaded to make the source available. After that, the source should be distributed by Debian. If the source is already distributed by Debian, then there's no issue to resolve. I don't think there are other possibilities. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp9Df_DtdF4j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
