Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
>> require a transparent copy for editing.
> That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
> supplied.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that the *license* has to require it.
For a work to be free, it is enough that we *have* source code; the
license itself does not need to demand source code, once in actual
fact we have it.
The alternative would be that BSD-style licenses (and donations to the
public domain) were not DFSG-free, which is clearly absurd.
--
Henning Makholm "Detta, sade de, vore rena sanningen;
ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon
annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til."
