On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 09:23, tom wrote: > My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf.
I think this is a non-issue. The DFSG is the DFSG, nothing more or less. > How does CC respect the availability of source code? The licenses neither enforce nor prevent a licensee's distribution of source code. Enforcing distribution of source code is not part of the DFSG, though, and we consider works under licenses that don't enforce source code distribution (e.g., 3-clause BSD) to be Free. Of course, our project's experience shows that just having a source-available license on some software doesn't necessarily make the source available. I believe availability of source code (the first half of DFSG #2) is an attribute of the package, and distributability of source code (the second half) is an attribute of the license. And I think that the CC licenses make redistribution of source code OK. > Can we consider dfsg-free a song which can be playd just in MSplayer, > or a text readable just whit adobe reader? Absolutely. The problem with secret and/or obfuscated file formats is not that you can't read or use them on some player or another; it's that they're hard or impossible to modify. I'd think, though, that if there were no Free player for a work, it couldn't go into main. It'd be pretty fair to say that a work depends, in the Debian sense, on some kind of player. ~ESP P.S. Tom, I CC'd you on this since I'm not sure if you're on debian-legal. If you are, sorry for the double-post. -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
