Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> writes: > Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes: > > > Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must > > satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source > > available, which we cannot. > > > > Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires > > distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. > > > > If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the > > GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). > > Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the > requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend "backwards", prior > to the point it was applied.
Nowhere in Don's argument above does that assumption apply. It only references conditions that the redistributor must satisfy. > For photographs, the argument about what constitutes "source" can > easily become absurd. Let's endeavour to avoid becoming absurd, then. > I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for > modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its > depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would > rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. > Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the > GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? If that's what the copyright holder insists is their interpretation of the conditions of the GPL, that interpretation would have to qualify as making the work non-free under the DFSG. If such an interpretation were to be ruled binding in a court case, that would make that work non-free. It would be up to the ftpmasters to decide how likely that is, and what to do about the package in Debian. If you ever encounter such a copyright holder who seriously has such an interpretation, please file an appropriately-detailed bug report on the Debian package. As you say, though, it's quite easy to be absurd when discussing how terms and laws apply; resolving such terms fairly is what judicial systems are supposed to be for. Logically or not, conveniently or not, different works under the same license can potentially differ in whether they are free, and the knowledge of which is which might not rest in anyone's head until the question of a specific work is examined in a court of law (and perhaps not even then). The law, as has been wisely said, is often an ass. As an aside, it's partially for reason of reducing this ambiguity that the prevailing wisdom around here is *not* to discuss the freedom of licenses in the abstract, but of specific works as they are licensed and distributed. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but if they called them ‘Sad Meals’, kids wouldn't buy | _o__) them!” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
