On 2020, ജൂലൈ 17 8:14:24 PM IST, Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote:
>[This was just a convenient point in the thread to which to reply; it's
>not really a reply to Sean's specific message.]
>
>I think, instead of pedantically applying the wording of the DFSG, we
>should be pedantically applying the intended purpose of the DFSG. The
>legal profession has proven, time and time again, that no written
>language can perfectly express any sufficiently complex idea (nor can it
>express perfectly many very simple ideas).
>
>The intended purpose is to ensure that the recipient has every
>reasonable opportunity to modify the software in any reasonable way the
>recipient desires. The sole purpose of the requirement for source is to
>protect this freedom, and the requirement should not be applied
>independently from this purpose.
>
>So the question becomes how does the inclusion or exclusion of the
>binary blob, without inclusion of the full source and build process of
>the broken version of the software used to produce the binary blob,
>enhance or detract from the recipient's ability to produce a modified
>version of the current, good, distributed software.
Very, well put. Many times I see blind application of rules without any other
consideration. The rules serve a purpose, our purpose is not to blindly serve
the rules. If the rules are stopping us, we need to change them, not just
adjust ourselves to the rules once written.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
