On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:40:06 -0400 Greg Harris wrote: > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > As far as I am concerned, I do *not* want to separate documentation > > and programs from fonts, graphics, sounds, and so forth. > > I am convinced that *all* these works need to have source available in > > order to comply with the DFSG and be called Free. [...] > With all due respect, I think you are mixing issues here. I don't think > anyone has advanced an argument that anything, including data, should > not be covered by the DFSG.
My understanding is that an argument is being advanced by Steve Langasek that "Source is only mandatory for programs under the DFSG as written" [1] This is applying the DFSG in a weaker sense for non-programmatic works than for programs. I think we already discussed this issue on this list: see some past threads [2][3][4]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00136.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00514.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00441.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00149.html [...] > If an upstream author chooses to offer non-text data under a free > license, the format in which the data is offered should, in the first > instance, be within the discretion of the author. The format choice is within the author's discretion, but whether we consider the work as complying with the DFSG (or not) is within *our* discretion. When there is no source (== preferred form for making modifications) available, I do not think we should call the work DFSG-free. This holds for programs, for manuals, for images, for audio files, and so forth... Once again, IANADD & TINASOTODP. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpdVkrQbIfqw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
