On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:04:51PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need > > > > > sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is that > > > > > still a little vague about which types of works don't require source. > > > > What problems do you consider this vagueness to cause? What changes > > > > would > > > > you suggest to make this less vague? > > > It lists "images, video, and fonts". And I'm assume it's going to cover > > > more than just that. I'm also not sure that this is something we want > > > for all types of data. > > I think we *want* the best possible form for modification for all types of > > data. I don't think the DFSG *requires* this, and therefore I don't think > > *we* should require it. Do you disagree? > I think we should require it. Well, you're entitled to your opinion on that, of course. I disagree, because I don't see that the DFSG requires it, and I don't think it's worth delaying a release over (which is how I understand "require"). > The DFSG says we need the source, and I understand that as the best > possible form for modification. The DFSG says we need the source for programs. > For instance, bison/yacc generates a C file. You could consider that > C file a source, but it's not. We want the original file that was used > to generate that C file. There might be several layers of tools that > are used to generate an object file from it's source, but it's the > source we want. Presumably we're all in agreement that this is a program, though, not data... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
