On 2020-07-17 18:30, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 2020, ജൂലൈ 17 8:14:24 PM IST, Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: >> 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.
I fully concur with your opinions, however I'm not sure that they are universally shared and/or clear. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't exist. Some norms avoid the risk of "blindly serving the rules" by expressly rejecting that, for example Article 11 GDPR [1] holds that the GDPR is not self-serving. [1] https://gdpr.eu/article-11-what-personal-data-can-a-controller-process-without-identification/
