* Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> [150902 17:36]: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:33:57 -0400 Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: > > > No, "A preferred form" is what upstream uses. The DFSG does not use > > > the term "THE preferred form", and I believe that was wise. > > The DFSG doesn't define source at all. There seems to be consensus (you're > the > only one who doesn't seem to agree) that the definition from the GPL is a good > one, and that does say "the".
Quoting from [1]: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. People keep trying to use "the preferred form for modification" as a rule. This is wrong. The rest of the paragraph quoted above should also be read. I do strongly believe that "preferred form for modification" is a good test to apply, but it is not an absolute. I also believe that sometimes there is more than one form of source that can satisfy the DFSG. A simple example is the .xcf/.png/.ico example I gave in a previous message. This is why I disagree with using "THE" (implying only one) instead of "A" (implying one of many). > > > There can be multiple "preferred forms" for some software, and all are, in > > > my opinion, acceptable by the DFSG. The real question is whether it is > > > reasonable to expect someone who wishes to modify the software to consider > > > the form "source". > > I disagree partly. It is possible to copy a generated file and use that as > source. IMO that isn't the case until there have actually been made > modifications to that file, though. If an upstream (which doesn't need to be > the original upstream) actually uses a file to make modifications, an argument > can be made that this format is source. > > At the same time, we should try to convince upstreams that do such a thing to > stop it; it causes code duplication and a (security) support nightmare. I'm not sure how that is relevant to what I said. > "Someone might think they can make modifications to this file" is much too > broad; for some modifications a hex editor is good enough. And in some cases > that is totally reasonable, such as an executable for which you don't have > source. That doesn't make binary exectutables source. That is not at all what I said. To paraphrase, using a circular definition, if I can _reasonably_ _expect_ most other people to agree that it is source, then that is a very good indication that it is source. ...Marvin [1] https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#testing
